Ok

En poursuivant votre navigation sur ce site, vous acceptez l'utilisation de cookies. Ces derniers assurent le bon fonctionnement de nos services. En savoir plus.

dimanche, 13 octobre 2013

La crisi finanziaria e il nuovo ordine economico mondiale

La crisi finanziaria e il nuovo ordine economico mondiale

Ex: http://www.geopolitica-rivista.org
La crisi finanziaria e il nuovo ordine economico mondiale

In distribuzione

Geopolitica, vol. II, no. 1 (Primavera 2013)

 
Nel 2008 una grave crisi finanziaria sistemica, legata soprattutto al fenomeno dei “derivati”, ha colpito il mondo intero, facendo ancora oggi sentire i suoi effetti sull’economia globale. Da allora, diverse ricette sono state presentate e applicate per risolvere il rallentamento della crescita, che in alcuni paesi è stagnazione e in altri, tra cui l’Italia, vera e propria recessione. I cinque anni successivi all’esplodere della crisi hanno visto fronteggiarsi le rivendicazioni dei paesi emergenti rispetto alle tradizionali potenze economiche legate al sistema di Bretton Woos, ma anche i fautori dell’austerità fiscale a quelli di un risveglio di politiche di stampo keynesiano. Cosa provoca il perdurare della crisi? Come è possibile risolverla?
274 pp, cartografie b/n, ISBN

Indice:

EDITORIALE

La globalizzazione della crisi e lo shift geopolitico (Tiberio Graziani)

FOCUS

Economia reale vs. speculazione. Una disputa irrisolta nel mezzo di rischi sistemici (Paolo Raimondi)
La crisi finanziaria e la guerra per il governo globale (Kees van der Pijl)
Lo stallo del mondo contemporaneo (Andrej Volodin)
L’inevitabile declino? L’ordine occidentocentrico alla prova dell’understretching (Davide Borsani) Peer reviewed
La crisi finanziaria e l’ordine economico mondiale (Angela De Martiis) Peer reviewed
L’oro come asset strategico in un contesto di guerre valutarie (Enrico Ferrini) Peer reviewed
Tramonto dell’egemonia americana? Implicazioni economiche e geopolitiche dei nuovi scenari energetici e tecnologici (Enrico Mariutti) Peer reviewed
Le ragioni della crisi europea. Una visione dalla periferia (Marcelo Gullo)
Europa, vantaggio posizionale ed Euro (Peter Holland)
L’Unione Europea in recessione sceglie l’austerità (Nancy De Leo) Peer reviewed
Capire la crisi europea contro l’ortodossia vigente: la Modern Money Theory e la comprensione dei sistemi monetari (Diego Del Priore) Peer reviewed
L’India e la crisi dell’eurozona (Jayshree Sengupta)
I Brics e la crisi della governance globale (Zorawar Daulet Singh)
Il Corridoio Trans-Euroasiatico Razvitie (Sviluppo): un nuovo polo di generazione di ricchezza sociale (Michail Bajdakov, Jurij Gromyko, Viktor Zjukov)
Lo sviluppo industriale innovativo e la politica dell’istruzione del Kazakhstan di oggi (Nazhen Sarsembekov)
Lotta alla corruzione e difesa degli interessi nazionali in Kazakhstan (Luca Bionda)
Le misure politico-economiche adottate dal Giappone per contrastare la crisi (Massimiliano Porto)
Il modello della knowledge-based economy: il caso di Israele (Cinzia Bianco) Peer reviewed

ORIZZONTI

La situazione degli studi geopolitici in Iran (Mohammad Reza Dehshiri)
Contro l’unità mondiale. Carl Schmitt e l’ordine liberale (Fabio Petito)

RECENSIONI

Edward Luttwak, Il risveglio del drago (Daniele Scalea)

Autori:

MICHAIL BAJDAKOV Presidente di Millennium Bank, Mosca
CINZIA BIANCO M.A. in Middle East and Mediterranea Studies (King’s College, Londra)
LUCA BIONDA Direttore di Programma nell’IsAG
DAVIDE BORSANI Dottorando di ricerca in Istituzioni e politiche (Università Cattolica di Milano)
ZORAWAR DAULET SINGH Dottorando al King’s College di Londra
NANCY DE LEO Cultore di Scienza e storia delle Relazioni Internazionali (Università Kore di Enna)
ANGELA DE MARTIIS Ricercatrice associata dell’IsAG
MOHAMMAD REZA DEHSHIRI Professore di Scienze Politiche (Facoltà di Relazioni internazionali, Ministero degli Affari Esteri della Repubblica Islamica dell’Iran)
DIEGO DEL PRIORE Ricercatore associato dell’IsAG
ENRICO FERRINI Dottore in Economia aziendale (Università di Firenze), lavora presso una società di trading e raffinazione metalli
TIBERIO GRAZIANI Presidente dell’IsAG, direttore di “Geopolitica”
JURIJ GROMYKO Direttore dell’Istituto di Ricerche Avanzate “E.L. Shiffers”, Mosca
MARCELO GULLO Professore alla Scuola Superiore di Guerra e all’Accademia Diplomatica dell’Argentina
PETER HOLLAND School of Economic Science
ENRICO MARIUTTI Laureando in Storia moderna e contemporanea (Università di Roma Sapienza)
FABIO PETITO Docente di relazioni internazionali presso la University of Sussex
MASSIMILIANO PORTO Direttore del programma “Asia Orientale” dell’IsAG
PAOLO RAIMONDI Editorialista di “Italia Oggi” e “La Finanza”
NAZHEN SARSEMBEKOV Vice-Presidente del Comitato Innovazione del partito kazako “Nur Otan”
JAYSHREE SENGUPTA Senior Fellow della Observer Research Foundation di Nuova Delhi
KEES VAN DER PIJL Professore emerito di Relazioni internazionali (University of Sussex)
ANDREJ VOLODIN Professore presso l’Accademia Diplomatica del Ministero degli Affari Esteri della Federazione Russa
VIKTOR ZJUKOV Produttore della piattaforma intellettuale RAZVITIE, Mosca

Sommari:

Il Corridoio Trans-Euroasiatico Razvitie (Sviluppo): un nuovo polo di generazione di ricchezza sociale
MICHAIL BAJDAKOV, JURIJ GROMYKO, VIKTOR ZJUKOV

L’articolo esamina le possibili trasformazioni del quadro economico-finanziario mondiale sulla base dell’idea del Corridoio Trans-Euroasiatico “Razvitie”: uno spazio di investimenti a lungo termine di tipo nuovo. Scopo di tale progetto è la creazione di un nuovo polo in grado di generare ricchezza sociale nel territorio euroasiatico, lungo cioè tutta la massa continentale. Il Corridoio Trans-Euroasiatico “Razvitie” va inteso come una complessa e dinamica rete infrastrutturale basata sull’uso di alta tecnologia e su una nuova concezione socio-culturale dello sviluppo. Una rete da realizzarsi non solo tenendo conto del sistema dei mercati esistenti ma soprattutto in considerazione della possibilità che sorgano nel futuro nuovi mercati che ancora non esistono.

Il modello della knowledge-based economy: il caso di Israele
CINZIA BIANCO

Questa analisi sostiene che il modello economico conosciuto come “knowledge economy” (economia della conoscenza, ndt.) rappresenti una valida alternativa per Stati di minore entità, soprattutto in vista degli sviluppi che hanno seguito al crisi finanziaria mondiale del 2009. Per convalidare questa tesi, sarà esposto da un punto di vista teorico e poi pragmatico il modello israeliano, una delle economie che meglio ha resistito alla recessione, e si tratterà degli Stati che già hanno applicato questo modello. L’analisi si chiuderà con delle riflessioni sulle ripercussioni a livello strategico che potrebbero verificarsi con l’acquisizione da parte di Stati minori di un nuovo ruolo sullo scacchiere geoeconomico internazionale.

Lotta alla corruzione e difesa degli interessi nazionali in Kazakhstan
LUCA BIONDA

Il governo kazako pare impegnarsi sempre più nella lotta ai suoi “cattivi ragazzi”, politici e uomini d’affari saliti coinvolti in scandali finanziari e altri reati commessi soprattutto all’estero. Ciò si inserisce nel più vasto programma nazionale di accreditamento del paese presso gli organismi internazionali e le strutture chiave dell’economia mondiale. La lotta alla corruzione costituisce una premessa indispensabile per uniformare lo sviluppo delle regioni economicamente periferiche e migliorare l’immagine del paese all’estero. Non c’è dunque da stupirsi se il governo di Astana ha deciso di correre ai ripari agendo su diversi fronti. In tale contesto si inseriscono le vicende che hanno coinvolto gli oligarchi Rakhat Aliyev (Shoraz), Mukhtar Ablyazov e diversi loro collaboratori.

L’inevitabile declino? L’ordine occidentocentrico alla prova dell’understretching
DAVIDE BORSANI

In Europa e negli Stati Uniti, la crisi finanziaria ha causato importanti ricadute sull’organizzazione delle finanze statali e sulla politica di potenza. Con il sostegno delle opinioni pubbliche, il welfare State è stata privilegiato rispetto al warfare State. Gli Stati Uniti hanno così avviato un processo di understretching, mentre l’Europa non sembra avere le risorse e la volontà di assumersi nuove responsabilità geopolitiche. Pur non crollando, il ponte che collega le due sponde dell’Atlantico poggia su due piloni traballanti. Il flusso di potenza in uscita dall’Occidente, se non invertito, potrebbe quindi cambiare l’equazione globale del potere con radicali conseguenze per l’attuale ordine mondiale.

I Brics e la crisi della governance globale
ZORAWAR DAULET SINGH

I BRICS hanno oggi l’opportunità di promuovere, all’interno della comunità internazionale, un dialogo che possa svincolarsi dal discorso dominante sulla governance globale, ampiamente screditato nell’ultimo decennio. Il primo vertice dei BRIC(S) si è tenuto nel 2009 sullo sfondo di una crisi finanziaria occidentale. I BRICS sono apparsi sulla scena mondiale in una fase in cui le potenze tradizionali stavano perdendo il loro storico dominio sull’economia mondiale. Per quale motivo l’ordine economico liberale post-1945 costruito dagli USA sta attraversando ora una profonda crisi strutturale? La globalizzazione sopravviverà alla fine dell’unipolarismo? I BRICS possono costituire un ordine mondiale alternativo? Tali sono i temi su cui riflette quest’articolo.

L’Unione Europea in recessione sceglie l’austerità
NANCY DE LEO

Le misure economiche, imposte dall’Unione Europea agli Stati vittime della crisi economico-finanziaria, non frenano la recessione economica in corso, generando danni sul piano sociale. Partendo da questa considerazione, il paper intende rivedere alcuni fondamenti economici adottati sino ad oggi dall’UE, principalmente tramite le recenti critiche dei Premi Nobel per l’economia Joseph Stiglitz e Paul Krugman. Ritorna in auge la politica economica keynesiana e si ripropongono le grandi riforme statunitensi del New Deal, all’epoca della Grande Crisi del 1929. Altresì l’inefficienza dei mercati finanziari richiede l’intervento dello Stato nei processi economici, al fine di regolarli. Il caso europeo, nella sua fattispecie, non consente ai singoli Stati membri di effettuare in autonomia delle scelte di natura economica, perché vincolati dagli altri Stati membri. Ciò che maggiormente emerge dalla crisi economica europea è la mancanza di solidarietà tra gli Stati membri. Non tenendo conto dell’importanza dell’esternalità, la Germania bloccando gli investimenti produce un effetto negativo anche per sé stessa. L’esternalità ci insegna che in un mondo integrato come il nostro, avere dei vicini con una economia in crescita produce effetti positivi anche su noi stessi.

La crisi finanziaria e l’ordine economico mondiale
ANGELA DE MARTIIS

Nell’attuale assetto globale, che vede Stati Uniti e Cina come principali partner e competitor della scena internazionale, si vanno delineando nuovi assetti politico-economici che inducono all’analisi di un nuovo ordine economico. La globalizzazione ha determinato lo sviluppo di nuovi mercati strategici, primo fra tutti la Cina, seguita da Brasile, Russia, India e Sud Africa, un arcipelago di paesi che rappresenta la futura geografia economica mondiale. All’interno di un difficile scenario economico-politico si assiste quindi ad una riconfigurazione geoeconomica, incoraggiata da una severa crisi finanziaria, che oltre ad aver messo a dura prova il circolo virtuoso Stati Uniti-Cina ha ridefinito la traiettoria di sviluppo dei futuri leader mondiali.

La situazione degli studi geopolitici in Iran
MOHAMMAD REZA DEHSHIRI

Lo studio della geopolitica e della geografia politica in Iran ha avuto una grande crescita negli ultimi trent’anni. La guerra con l’Iraq ha dato un primo impulso, con tendenza verso la geografia militare, alla diffusione di corsi universitari. Successivamente a catalizzare l’attenzione su questi rami di studio sono stati la dissoluzione dell’URSS (con la nascita di nuovi Stati indipendenti nell’Asia Centrale e nel Caucaso confinanti con l’Iran) e, in tempi più recenti, le rivolte arabe. Questo articolo mira a fare il punto sugli studi di geografia politica e geopolitica in Iran, individuando le cause della loro fortuna, presentandone i temi principali e analizzandone i cambiamenti nel corso degli anni.

Capire la crisi europea contro l’ortodossia vigente: la Modern Money Theory e la comprensione dei sistemi monetari
DIEGO DEL PRIORE

In tempi di crisi un graduale deteriorarsi dello status quo favorisce un’attenzione ed un ascolto più sensibile nei confronti del non ortodosso, del fino ad allora inascoltato. La presente analisi si prefigge di offrire una visione alternativa dell’economia, rovesciando totalmente i dogmi correnti. Comprendere come funzionano i sistemi monetari, che cos’è la moneta e le sue implicazioni politiche e sociali, è l’asse portante della Modern Money Theory (MMT), una scuola di pensiero economico che, sull’eredità di John Maynard Keynes, solo per citare uno dei suoi più autorevoli ispiratori, ci aiuta a capire l’Eurozona, la sua crisi e le potenzialità di uno Stato che possegga una sovranità monetaria.

L’oro come asset strategico in un contesto di guerre valutarie
ENRICO FERRINI

A cinque anni dallo scoppio della crisi, gli squilibri economici e finanziari che ne sancirono l’inizio nel 2008 sembrano ancora oggi irrisolti se non ingigantiti. In mancanza di un sufficiente grado di cooperazione internazionale che potesse attenuare questi squilibri, le svalutazioni monetarie sono diventate con la crisi lo strumento attraverso cui i paesi perseguono le proprie finalità economiche, aggiungendo instabilità al sistema monetario internazionale. In questo contesto l’ oro si sta riaffermando con sempre maggior forza nel suo storico ruolo monetario, arrivando a rappresentare oggi un asset di grande valore strategico e politico da utilizzare per dare credibilità ai sistemi valutari se non per lanciarne altri in alternativa a quello vigente.

La globalizzazione della crisi e lo shift geopolitico
TIBERIO GRAZIANI

A distanza di circa un lustro dall’esplosione della crisi economico-finanziaria e nonostante le numerose analisi prodotte, gli studi ad essa dedicati e i suggerimenti proposti, le leadership dei paesi coinvolti ancora non sono riusciti a trovare e a mettere in campo soluzioni soddisfacenti, né per un suo contenimento, né per un suo superamento. Giacché la particolarità di questa crisi epocale – che mette a nudo le contraddizioni del sistema neoliberista – è da ricercarsi anche nella sua relazione con il cambio geopolitico globale in atto, lo stallo in cui si dibattono i decisori politici, economici e finanziari costituisce una particolare espressione della tensione che sussiste tra i sostenitori del vecchio assetto unipolare e le spinte verso l’evoluzione multipolarista dello scenario internazionale.

Le ragioni della crisi europea. Una visione dalla periferia
MARCELO GULLO

La crisi economico-finanziaria europea discende tanto da quella globale originatasi negli USA, quanto da sviluppi propri e peculiari dell’Europa. Negli anni ’70 il capitalismo finanziario-speculativo ha preso il sopravvento su quello industriale-produttivo, e in Europa si è rotta l’alleanza tra borghesia e lavoratori mediata dalla classe politica. La classe politica si è schierata col capitalismo finanziario dando avvio a una stagione di delocalizzazione industriale e politiche neoliberali. La crisi attuale ha portato al culmine di questo processo: il personale degl’istituti del capitalismo finanziario stanno sostituendosi ai funzionari politici alla guida degli Stati, ed anche agli Stati al centro del sistema mondiale vengono imposte le politiche neoliberali prima riservate al Terzo Mondo. La dinamica interna è invece l’affermarsi dell’egemonia (involontaria) della Germania sugli altri paesi dell’Unione Europea a seguito dell’introduzione della moneta unica, che l’ha resa una grande potenza esportatrice a discapito delle periferie europee e anche della Francia.

Europa, vantaggio posizionale ed Euro
PETER HOLLAND

La prima integrazione pacifica degli Stati nazionali europei è cominciata nel 1957 con la Comunità Economica Europea (CEE). L’enfasi era sull’economia, ma alcuni dei padri fondatori – come Jean Monnet – ambivano a un’integrazione più complessiva. È questa ambizione ad aver guidato il continuo progresso dell’integrazione europea, malgrado i dubbi di molti cittadini. Sfortunatamente le disposizioni della CEE hanno fin dall’inizio ignorato un principio fondamentale, la Teoria della localizzazione, i cui effetti causeranno gravi tensioni internazionali e probabilmente la disintegrazione dell’UE se si dovesse continuare a ignorarla. Questo saggio spiega la Teoria della localizzazione e i suoi effetti, con un esempio numerico tratto dalle prime fasi della CEE, e suggerisce possibili correzioni all’errore di modo da garantire a tutte le nazioni europee eguali opportunità di prosperare.

Tramonto dell’egemonia americana? Implicazioni economiche e geopolitiche dei nuovi scenari energetici e tecnologici
ENRICO MARIUTTI

Grazie al fenomeno shale gas e shale e tight oil, gli USA potranno contare, nei prossimi 10/15 anni, su una netta riduzione del costo dell’energia. Confrontando il costo attuale del Kw/h tra UE, USA e Cina e le oscillazioni previste nei prossimi 10/15 anni si può valutare il riassetto del mercato globale dei combustibili fossili e dell’energia, le possibili evoluzioni delle dinamiche industriali di alcune regioni (concentrazione di produzioni ad alto costo energetico, spinta a una maggiore automazione dei cicli industriali, riallocazione di parte dell’industria manifatturiera) e i nuovi equilibri di alcune aree del pianeta particolarmente interessate dall’evoluzione del fenomeno (Medio Oriente, Sud-Est Asiatico).

Contro l’unità mondiale. Carl Schmitt e l’ordine liberale
FABIO PETITO

Il presente articolo è tratto da un capitolo di The International Political Thought of Carl Schmitt: Terror, liberal war and the crisis of global order, libro collettaneo edito da Routledge (Londra-New York 2007) e curato da Fabio Petito e Louiza Odysseos. Si prende in considerazione la critica di Carl Schmitt all’idea della necessità politica e/o morale di unificazione planetaria, la sua analisi dell’ordine post-bellico e la ricerca d’un nuovo Nomos della Terra. Infine da una prospettiva schmittiana si critica una tesi di Alexander Wendt.

Le misure politico-economiche adottate dal Giappone per contrastare la crisi
MASSIMILIANO PORTO

L’articolo tratta delle misure politico-economiche adottate dal Giappone all’indomani della crisi finanziaria globale del 2007-2008. Nella prima parte dell’articolo ci si sofferma brevemente sull’andamento della crisi e sulla sua trasformazione da crisi finanziaria a crisi reale. Successivamente si fanno dei richiami alla precedente crisi finanziaria che ha colpito il Giappone negli anni Novanta del secolo scorso che ha avuto pesanti conseguenze sull’economia nipponica ma ha anche costituito una lezione per i policy-makers giapponesi. Infine si conclude l’articolo con le misure di politica economica adottate dal governo e dalla Banca centrale del Giappone per contrastare gli effetti della crisi.

Economia reale vs speculazione. Una disputa irrisolta nel mezzo di rischi sistemici
PAOLO RAIMONDI

La crisi del 2008 non ha cancellato certi comportamenti irresponsabili da parte delle banche e della grande finanza. All’orizzonte si profilano nuovi colossali disastri sistemici se i governi non sapranno reagire come F.D. Roosevelt negli anni ’30, costruendo una nuova Bretton Woods i cui pilastri siano la responsabilizzazione delle banche, il controllo del mercato tramite un nuovo Glass-Steagall Act e la Tobin Tax, politiche d’investimento che vadano a favore dell’economia reale. Il denaro che con tanta celerità e prodigalità è stato trovato per aiutare gli speculatori finanziari, dovrebbe essere destinato a investimenti infrastrutturali di lungo periodo.

Lo sviluppo industriale innovativo e la politica dell’istruzione del Kazakhstan di oggi
NAZHEN SARSEMBEKOV

In quest’articolo viene discussa la politica industriale innovativa realizzata in Kazakhstan riguardo all’innalzamento della qualità del capitale umano attraverso lo sviluppo della scienza e della formazione. L’Autore evidenzia l’importanza e il tempismo della realizzazione del programma statale “SIII 2010-2014″, il quale avrà un’influenza positiva sulla crescita dell’economia del Paese. L’Autore arriva alla conclusione che per rispettare i parametri di crescita prestabiliti dell’economia è indispensabile aumentare la qualità del capitale umano attravero la formazione.

L’India e la crisi dell’eurozona
JAYSHREE SENGUPTA

L’India, al pari di gran parte dell’Asia Meridionale, sta attraversando una fase di brusco rallentamento della crescita indotta principalmente dalla crisi dell’eurozona. Il governo indiano, malgrado alcuni interventi sociali populisti, ha adottato una risposta per lo più neoliberale, con l’apertura del mercato interno agl’investimenti esteri e politiche monetarie deflattive. Tali politiche, molto simili a quelle dell’Unione Europea, hanno però costi sociali ancora più gravi in India, dove già una grossa fetta della popolazione vive in condizioni di povertà, anche estrema, e dove gl’investimenti in campo sanitario o educativo sono molto bassi. Tutto ciò sta allargando la sperequazione sociale e gettando nell’indigenza milioni di persone, con effetti non solo sul futuro dell’economia ma anche sull’ordine interno, come dimostra la crescente insorgenza maoista.

La crisi finanziaria e la guerra per il governo globale
KEES VAN DER PIJL

Il militarismo di Reagan e la rivolta dei mercati finanziari contro il keynesismo hanno segnato la transizione dal liberismo corporativo al neoliberismo e la proiezione del controllo globale da parte dell’Occidente. Nei primi anni ’90 il complesso militare-industriale statunitense è stato riorganizzato in modo da renderlo dipendente dagli investimenti bancari, accrescendo l’interconnessione tra la finanza internazionale e l’attivismo militare nel processo di globalizzazione neoliberista. Nell’espansione della NATO e nell’intervento in Jugoslavia, e nella serie di guerre in Medio Oriente in risposta agli attacchi del 11 settembre, il dilatato complesso finanziario-industriale-militare ha creato una condizione di guerra e tensione permanenti. Ciò si è verificato soprattutto dopo che l’asse finanziario si è disintegrato nella crisi del 2007-08 e gli Stati Uniti, trascinando con loro l’Europa attraverso la NATO, hanno fatto sempre più affidamento sul “vantaggio competitivo” della loro macchina militare.

Lo stallo del mondo contemporaneo
ANDREJ VOLODIN

L’attuale fase del sistema di relazioni internazionali può essere descritta come uno stallo, un’incapacità collettiva di assumere decisioni importanti e lavorare congiuntamente sugli scenari di lungo periodo. Nell’articolo ne viene proposta una ricostruzione che coinvolge aspetti economici, storici e geopolitici. Alla crisi economica del capitalismo anti-statalista e liberista figlio della rivoluzione thatcheriano-reaganiana si è aggiunta quella dell’unipolarismo geopolitico che ha le sua radici nella dissoluzione dell’URSS. Soltanto l’inclusione dei Paesi emergenti in organizzazioni internazionali dal profilo istituzionale rinnovato può mettere fine a questa fase di stallo ed aprire un nuovo orizzonte nella storia politica internazionale.

samedi, 12 octobre 2013

Entretien avec Aymeric Chauprade

chronique-edition-2013-604x270.jpg

Aymeric Chauprade : « Si les États-Unis n’acceptent pas le monde multipolaire, alors il y aura une guerre mondiale encore plus terrible que les deux précédentes »

Alors que la 3e édition de la Chronique du choc des civilisations, le fameux « Chauprade », comme on dit désormais, vient de sortir en librairie, Nouvelles de France a interrogé son auteur. Entretien sans langue de bois !

Aymeric Chauprade, vous publiez dans votre Chronique du choc des civilisations une très instructive carte du grand Moyen-Orient voulu par les États-Unis d’Amérique. Sur quoi est-elle fondée ?

Il s’agit d’une représentation d’un possible redécoupage des frontières moyen-orientales sur une base communautaire (religieuse ou ethnique). Cette idée n’est pas nouvelle. Elle a été imaginée plusieurs fois depuis les années 1980 dans certains cercles stratégiques israéliens et américains. Elle n’a jamais été adoptée comme politique des États-Unis, puisque officiellement, c’est l’intangibilité des frontières qui prévaut, mais l’on voit bien qu’avec la création du Kosovo dans les Balkans, les États-Unis ne sont en rien fixés sur l’intangibilité des frontières existantes.


Plusieurs auteurs issus de think tanks américains ont publié de telles cartes. Je pense que rien n’est tranché sur cette question. La vérité en la matière n’est ni noire, ni blanche, elle est grise. Ces intentions existent, et peut-être certains milieux stratégiques américains et israéliens pensent-ils que leur suprématie au Moyen-Orient sera mieux assurée si une telle recomposition se produit et qu’Israël voit naître de petits États alliés (druze, kurde…) face aux Arabes sunnites.


Mais les forces qui remuent un État ne sont en réalité jamais unifiées, et peuvent même être contradictoires. La politique est la résultante de toutes ces forces. Mon intention est donc de permettre au lecteur d’imaginer ce qui est possible, sans pour autant l’enfermer dans une vérité systématique.


« J’ai été l’un des premiers, en France, à éclairer le basculement de la géopolitique américaine après l’effondrement soviétique dans une stratégie de refus d’ascension de la Chine et plus généralement de refus d’un monde multipolaire. »


L’une des grandes thèses de votre Chronique, c’est la fin progressive d’un monde unipolaire organisé autour des États-Unis d’Amérique au profit d’un monde multipolaire (Chine, etc.), le Moyen-Orient comme condition à cette évolution et l’islamisme comme barrage. En quoi cette thèse est-elle novatrice ? Est-elle opposée ou complémentaire à la thèse du choc des civilisations actualisée par Samuel P. Huntington ou à celle du choc traditionalisme/progressisme (Caroline Fourest) ?


Je ne sais pas si ma thèse est novatrice. Ce que je sais c’est que j’ai été l’un des premiers, en France, à éclairer le basculement de la géopolitique américaine après l’effondrement soviétique dans une stratégie de refus d’ascension de la Chine et plus généralement de refus d’un monde multipolaire.


Je pense que le Moyen-Orient est le lieu principal, mais non unique, de cet affrontement entre forces de l’unipolarité, tendues vers le projet d’une hégémonie américaine, et forces (diverses) de la multipolarité. Cette idée n’est opposée ni à la thèse de Huntington ni à celle de Fourest. Huntington a eu le mérite de rappeler que les civilisations existent et que le monde ne se réduit pas à un affrontement idéologique entre les démocraties et les tyrannies, un conte pour enfants qui est pourtant « vendu » par les politiques occidentaux à leurs électeurs.


Moi je dis que l’Histoire ne se réduit pas au choc des civilisations, car les nations et les figures historiques jouent aussi un rôle central, mais que le choc des civilisations est une réalité du temps long de l’Histoire.


Quant à la thèse de Caroline Fourest, cela va vous paraître curieux mais je la partage, à la différence près (essentielle) que je me situe dans le camp opposé au sien ! On peut être marxien sans être marxiste. Fourest est à la pointe du combat LGBT ; il est normal qu’elle ait compris très tôt la guerre qu’elle faisait au monde de la tradition !


« Les États-Unis et l’Union européenne sont devenus les promoteurs de la destruction de la famille par la THÉORIE DU GENRE, par le MARIAGE HOMOSEXUEL, par la MARCHANDISATION DU CORPS ; en face, la Russie va s’affirmer comme l’État qui défend les valeurs traditionnelles et la véritable liberté de l’homme. »


Donc en effet, en plus des permanences et des ruptures géopolitiques, il existe un affrontement idéologique. Celui d’un monde qui pense que la liberté et la dignité de l’homme reposent sur les valeurs naturelles (et ces valeurs dépassent le christianisme, elles ne découlent pas de la religion, elles sont en chacun d’entre nous, quelques soient nos croyances) comme la famille ; et celui d’un autre monde (Fourest en est l’avant-garde) fondé sur le grand marché de « ce que nous pourrions être à la place de ce que la nature a voulu que nous soyons ».


Ces deux systèmes de valeur vont s’affronter en effet de plus en plus dans les années à venir. Les États-Unis et l’Union européenne sont devenus les promoteurs de la destruction de la famille par la théorie du genre, par le mariage homosexuel, par la marchandisation du corps ; en face, la Russie va s’affirmer comme l’État qui défend les valeurs traditionnelles et la véritable liberté de l’homme. Je ne suis pas allé parler à la Douma par hasard !


Quant à l’islamisme, il y a longtemps que je dis qu’il est le meilleur allié du projet américain dans la guerre contre le monde multipolaire. Il est l’idiot utile de l’Occident américain.


Cette évolution de l’unipolarité à la multipolarité est-elle inéluctable ? Quelles conséquences la fin d’un monde unipolaire aura-t-elle pour Israël ?


Il n’y a d’inéluctable que ce que l’on accepte. Je ne crois pas au sens de l’Histoire. La seule flèche de l’Histoire est celle du progrès des sciences et des techniques dont découle l’essentiel des révolutions mentales. Pour le reste, certaines valeurs immuables, comme la famille, traversent le temps. Le Bien et le Mal sont immuables. Ils ont traversé les siècles et malheureusement le Mal n’est pas moins fort aujourd’hui qu’il ne l’était hier.

Ce que je pense, c’est que si les États-Unis n’acceptent pas le monde multipolaire, alors il y aura une guerre mondiale encore plus terrible que les deux précédentes. De mon point de vue, Israël ne devrait pas souhaiter cela car, alors, une nouvelle catastrophe surviendrait pour le peuple juif. Je pense pour ma part qu’Israël peut survivre et même trouver toute sa place dans un monde multipolaire.


Je ne vois pas au nom de quoi j’empêcherai à un peuple d’exister et d’avoir la sécurité. Cela nécessite un progrès dans les mentalités tant du côté israélien, que du côté arabe. En tout cas je ne crois pas du tout que le destin d’Israël soit lié à l’hyperpuissance américaine. Israël joue de l’hyperpuissance, mais une autre stratégie viable est possible pour ce pays.


« Sous prétexte de s’opposer à la géopolitique américaine, il ne faudrait pas non plus tomber dans l’idéalisme béat qui voudrait que les Chinois ou les Russes soient des bisounours… »


En dévorant votre Chronique, un lecteur non-initié pourrait penser que la géopolitique est décidément bien immorale et cynique. Est-ce par principe vrai ou la cause de ce constat se trouve-t-elle dans le fait que la plupart des pays développés sont aux mains de l’oligarchie mondialiste ?


L’oligarchie mondialiste (et les États occidentaux qu’elle contrôle) n’est pas la seule à défendre des intérêts cyniques. Ne caricaturons pas les choses. Tous les États du monde, y compris ceux qui s’opposent à l’oligarchie, obéissent au principe de la realpolitik et des intérêts.


Ce que je dis, c’est que le réaliste accepte et prend en compte le droit des États à défendre leurs intérêts et qu’il essaie ensuite de voir comment faire en sorte que la compétition des intérêts ne se transforme pas en bain de sang. Sous prétexte de s’opposer à la géopolitique américaine, il ne faudrait pas non plus tomber dans l’idéalisme béat qui voudrait que les Chinois ou les Russes soient des bisounours…


Je me méfie de toute façon de tous les manichéismes, aussi bien quand il s’agit de faire endosser la peau du méchant au Russe, au Serbe, à l’Israélien ou à l’Arabe. Regardons les intérêts de chacun, essayons de comprendre leur point de vue, et méfions-nous de ne pas appliquer les modes de pensée de nos adversaires, ceux de la diabolisation de l’ennemi.


En quoi le mondialisme (idéologie) est-il distinct de la mondialisation (un fait déjà ancien, certains disent qu’elle a commencé sous l’Empire romain) ?


La mondialisation est le résultat de l’action d’une hyperpuissance, hier Rome, aujourd’hui les États-Unis, qui décloisonne le monde dans le sens de ses intérêts propres. Le mondialisme est l’idéologie qui donne une légitimité philosophique et politique à cette action. Il existe un lien entre les deux, mais les deux phénomènes sont néanmoins à distinguer.


Par exemple, certains aspects du progrès scientifique et technique poussent dans le sens de l’émancipation des territoires et des frontières. D’autres aspects, comme la biométrie, permettent au contraire de mieux réguler les flux et de revenir aux signatures biologiques de l’homme, au moment où son état-civil est souvent falsifié.


Le fait que vous travailliez désormais avec Marine Le Pen et que vous l’assumiez publiquement ne risque-t-il pas de rendre moins crédible vos travaux aux yeux du grand public ?


Vous connaissez l’adage : « à vaincre sans péril, on triomphe sans gloire ». Évidemment, ce serait plus confortable de profiter de mon statut de consultant international, de rester sur les sphères tranquilles de la « métapolitique » sans mettre les mains dans le cambouis.


Le problème c’est que je ne supporte plus d’assister à la destruction lente de mon pays, en restant les bras croisés, dans la posture d’un Cicéron assistant au déclin de Rome. Je ne sais absolument pas si mon action sera utile, mais j’ai l’envie de me rendre utile au pays. Et je me dis que ma position en géopolitique, laquelle est, me semble-t-il, respectée, peut apporter quelque chose à la dynamique engagée par Marine Le Pen.


Après tout, la quasi-totalité des experts de mon domaine assument une appartenance politique, souvent socialiste, parfois UMP. Autrement dit, ils se sentent proches de partis qui, depuis plus de 30 ans, ont trompé les Français et affaibli la France. Pourquoi devrais-je avoir honte de dire que je me sens proche d’une femme de caractère, dont l’amour de la France n’est pas à mettre en doute et auxquels les Français ont de plus en plus envie de donner sa chance ?


Vous ne pensez pas que cette femme, qui a grandi dans l’hostilité violente, injuste, que le système opposait au talent de son père, a justement la cuirasse qu’il faut pour affronter les défis de la France et faire les choix courageux qui s’imposent en matière d’immigration et de réforme de l’État-providence ? Je crois que le problème de la France, c’est avant tout le manque de courage de ses élites : les gens qui nous gouvernent sont conformistes et sans caractère, et ne font que suivre  les idées dominantes.


Je connais ma valeur, mes forces et mes limites et n’ai jamais cherché la reconnaissance d’une caste d’universitaires sectaires. Il est connu et reconnu que j’ai réveillé la tradition géopolitique réaliste en France. Si cela échappe à certains ici, cela n’a pas échappé aux nombreux pays avec lesquels je travaille. Je m’honore à ne pas être honoré par un système que je combats de toutes mes forces et depuis toujours.

Combien d’exemplaires des deux premières éditions de votre Chronique du choc des civilisations avez-vous déjà vendu ? À combien d’exemplaires a été tirée la nouvelle ?

Pour les deux premières éditions de Chronique du choc des civilisations, nous en sommes à près de 30 000 exemplaires vendus. J’ignore à combien mon éditeur a tiré cette troisième édition. Je lui fais confiance car c’est un grand professionnel et comme je suis, par ailleurs, éditeur depuis 20 ans je n’ai pas pour habitude de harceler mes éditeurs!

Nouvelles de France


http://fortune.fdesouche.com/327299-aymeric-chauprade-si-les-etats-unis-nacceptent-pas-le-monde-multipolaire-alors-il-y-aura-une-guerre-mondiale-encore-plus-terrible-que-les-deux-precedentes#more-327299

Il Tibet e il problema idrico cinese

img620.gif

Il Tibet e il problema idrico cinese nel contesto dell’Asia Meridionale

Francesco Bellomia 
 
Ex: http://www.geopolitica-rivista.org

Si discute spesso del crescente fabbisogno energetico cinese e dunque delle problematiche relative al reperimento di materie prime come petrolio, gas naturale e carbone, ma, nell’ambito delle risorse naturali, ciò non rappresenta l’unica esigenza a cui la classe dirigente a Pechino deve far fronte. La mancanza di acqua, unita all’inquinamento di una parte delle risorse idriche disponibili, sta divenendo infatti una questione sempre più pressante, un problema che finisce per ripercuotersi sulla stessa crescita economica del paese, oltreché sulla stabilità sociale e sui rapporti della Cina con gli stati limitrofi nell’area dell’Asia Meridionale.

plateaumap_lgLa Cina detiene il 7% delle risorse mondiali di acqua, stante però una popolazione equivalente al 20% del totale, Pechino si classifica al centesimo posto su centosettantacinque paesi nel ranking relativo alle risorse idriche mondiali pro capite (con un ammontare di 2.093 m3 di acqua a persona)1.Essendo quella cinese un’economia ancora in espansione, il fabbisogno idrico ne risulterà certamente crescente in maniera esponenziale, soprattutto dal punto di vista industriale e abitativo. Sei regioni nel paese registrano già consumi di acqua superiori alle risorse disponibili, mentre altre cinque vengono considerate al di sotto della soglia di criticità (fissata a 1000 m3 di acqua pro capite)2.

Vi è poi un problema di distribuzione tra nord e sud. Il 77% delle risorse idriche è infatti concentrato nel sud del paese, mentre si trovano invece al nord il 64% delle terre arabili e il 40% della produzione industriale. Una parte delle risorse di acqua inoltre, non può essere utilizzata a causa degli elevati livelli di inquinamento. Il 34% dell’acqua dei sette maggiori fiumi cinesi è classificata come inquinata, di questa il 14% come altamente inquinata, il che la rende inservibile anche per gli usi industriali o agricoli. Secondo la FAO, intorno alle aree urbane, soprattutto quelle industrializzate del nord, il 90% dei fiumi può essere considerato come altamente inquinato3. Come è noto, alla base di tali dati vi è la priorità data da Pechino allo sviluppo industriale rispetto alle problematiche relative alla tutela ambientale, che però stanno finendo per ripercuotersi in maniera indiretta sullo stesso sviluppo economico del paese.

Per tentare di attenuare le carenze idriche e favorire un riequilibrio delle risorse tra nord e sud, il governo centrale cinese ha posto in essere alcuni imponenti progetti, sia in termini ingegneristici che economici, tra i quali spicca il South-North Water Diversion Project. Dai costi stimati di 62 miliardi di dollari, il progetto prevede la costruzione di tre sezioni di canali e dighe che, in diversi punti lungo il fiume Yangtze, dovrebbero convogliare l’acqua verso la parte nord del paese. L’obiettivo è di deviare annualmente, verso le pianure settentrionali, 45 miliardi di metri cubi di acqua.

I progetti di costruzione di dighe e di deviazione dei corsi d’acqua, oltreché rappresentare ulteriori minacce dal punto di vista ambientale, rischiano di esacerbare le relazioni di Pechino con i paesi confinanti. Centrale da questo punto di vista è la regione tibetana. Le abbondanti risorse idriche del Tibet sono un’ulteriore ragione per cui l’area ha un un’importanza fondamentale per la Cina, non solo dal punto di vista economico, ma anche strategico.

Nascono infatti in Tibet o nell’area dell’Altopiano tibetano, fiumi di importanza vitale non solo per la parte nord-orientale della Cina, come lo Yangtze o il Fiume Giallo, ma anche per gli altri paesi dell’Asia sud-orientale. È il caso dello Yarlung Tsangpo, che dal Tibet scorre verso l’India (dove prende il nome di Brahmaputra) e il Bangladesh; del fiume Saluen che raggiunge invece Myanmar e Thailandia; del fiume Mekong, che, partendo dalla regione tibetana, attraversa Myanmar, Laos, Thailandia, Cambogia e Vietnam; e del fiume Indo che dal Tibet confluisce poi in India e Pakistan, rappresentando per quest’ultimo la più importante fonte idrica del paese. Si tratta di corsi d’acqua che sono già stati oggetto della costruzione di dighe o altre infrastrutture di deviazione dei flussi, o che sono al centro di progetti in tal senso, pianificati dalle autorità cinesi.

In particolare, i piani riguardanti lo Yarlung Tsangpo, come la costruzione della diga di Zangmu o la sezione occidentale del South-North Water Diversion Project, diffondono una certa apprensione in India. Quest’ultima risulta dipendente dalla Cina non soltanto per la parte settentrionale del fiume Brahmaputra, ma anche per altri corsi d’acqua, come il già citato Indo e un suo importante affluente il Sutej, entrambi i quali sorgono all’interno della regione tibetana. L’India, come la Cina, deve essa stessa fare i conti con i problemi derivanti dalla cronica mancanza d’acqua, per cui la salute e la reperibilità delle proprie risorse idriche diventa vitale per Nuova Delhi. Per questi motivi, in più di un’occasione, gli indiani hanno chiesto alla Cina di essere trasparente, riguardo alla condivisione dei dati idrogeologici relativi al proprio tratto dei fiumi transfrontalieri. Le questioni riguardanti il Tibet restano dunque ancora una volta centrali nell’ambito dei rapporti sino-indiani. Relazioni segnate in larga parte da diffidenza, e che in passato hanno conosciuto significative tensioni collegate proprio allo status della regione tibetana.

Nei conflitti che possono derivare dal possesso delle risorse idriche di un fiume, è evidente il vantaggio di essere paesi “a monte” rispetto che “a valle”. In questo senso, rinunciare al Tibet significherebbe per la Cina perdere il controllo, non solo delle risorse idriche presenti nella regione, ma anche delle sorgenti di fiumi d’importanza fondamentale per il fabbisogno di molti paesi in tutta l’Asia Meridionale, corsi d’acqua che assicurano dunque a Pechino un potere strategico vitale.

Ultimamente, l’economia cinese sta subendo significativi rallentamenti e, secondo diversi analisti, la fase delle crescite a due cifre si è ormai ampiamente conclusa. Tutto ciò può avere significative conseguenza sulla tenuta del sistema. Al momento, i rischi maggiori per Pechino, più che dalle tensioni indipendentiste in Tibet o nello Xinjiang (seppur ancora ampiamente presenti), sembrerebbero nascere soprattutto dalle tensioni sociali che possono derivare dai problemi economici, oltreché dalla richiesta di maggiori diritti. Per anni, la solidità del sistema è stata garantita non solo dalla repressione, ma anche dalle opportunità che una crescita economica impetuosa sembrava offrire.

Da questo punto di vista, il Tibet, visti gli ulteriori margini di crescita economica, la ricchezza di minerali e altre risorse naturali, le possibilità di trasferimenti aggiuntivi di popolazione da aree sovrappopolate, continuerà a giocare un ruolo fondamentale. La regione è cambiata molto negli ultimi anni, la classe dirigente a Pechino infatti, non vi ha portato solo repressione e censura (o popolazioni di etnia Han), ma anche un certo sviluppo economico, particolarmente visibile soprattutto a Lhasa. Uno sviluppo percepito però da una buona parte dei tibetani come “colonialismo”, e dunque come una minaccia alla propria identità. Per decenni, a farla da padrone in Tibet sono stati la geografia e la natura, oggi lo sviluppo tecnologico ha reso la regione un po’ meno inospitale. Chi ha avuto la possibilità di visitarla testimonia di come appaia per certi versi come un “cantiere a cielo aperto”.

Tornando al problema idrico, secondo il 2030 Water Resources Group la domanda cinese di acqua nel 2030 supererà l’offerta di 201 miliardi di metri cubi4. Seppur le previsioni in questi ambiti sono sempre azzardate, la questione non può certo essere negata. Diventa fondamentale per Pechino un utilizzo più efficiente delle proprie risorse e una maggiore sensibilità riguardo ai problemi ambientali. Ulteriori progetti di deviazione e sfruttamento dei fiumi presenti nell’area sud-occidentale sembrerebbero inevitabili. L’acqua ha un’importanza vitale non solo dal punto di vista industriale o agricolo, ma anche da quelli della produzione di cibo, della salute, degli usi abitativi. Non bisogna dimenticare poi, che i vari corsi d’acqua fungono anche da fonti di produzione di energia idroelettrica, consentendo alla Cina di diversificare le sue fonti, attenuando la dipendenza dai combustibili fossili. La tenuta del sistema è quindi in buona parte legata alla disponibilità futura di una risorsa vitale e insostituibile.

L’acqua del Tibet dunque, sembrerebbe destinata a divenire sempre più un ulteriore terreno di attrito tra la Cina e i paesi limitrofi, i quali già accusano Pechino di scarsa trasparenza sui piani di gestione dei propri tratti dei corsi d’acqua transfrontalieri. In definitiva, nel contesto dell’Asia Meridionale, il rischio maggiore è che l’enorme fabbisogno cinese di acqua lasci a bocca asciutta tutti gli altri.

NOTE:
Francesco Bellomia, dottore magistrale in Relazioni Internazionali (Università degli Studi di Roma "La Sapienza"), è ricercatore associato del programma "Asia Meridionale" dell'IsAG.

1. Dato relativo al 2011. The World Bank.
2. Le suddivisioni amministrative in deficit idrico sono: Ningxia, Shanghai, Jiangsu, Tianjin, Pechino e Hebei. Le aree invece considerate in condizione di “carenza idrica” sono: Henan, Shandong, Shanxi, Liaoning e Gansu. Si tratta di 11 regioni che da sole forniscono il 45% del totale del PIL cinese, Chinawaterrisk.org.
3. Aquastat - FAO's global water information system.
4. Charting Our Water Future, "2030 Water Resources Group", 2009.

vendredi, 11 octobre 2013

Challenges and Opportunities for Russia

c28_6_1.jpg

Restructuring the World by Normative Means: Challenges and Opportunities for Russia

 
Ex: http://www.geopolitica.ru

In the light of global crisis lasting for almost five years the traditional advantages of the West in world politics have turned obviously relative. Its military power is ever more costly and ever less effective for imposing stable order in strategically important regions. Its economy is creeping and prospects of its growth are still obscure. And with resurfacing deep societal imbalances Western ideational leadership is also fading away. In many respects the West finds itself excessively dependent upon foreign markets including those of rising powers which strive to retain and expand their political autonomy.

This means that the gap between the West and the Rest cannot be sustained by usual power instruments and in several years it can be narrowed to a dangerous and irreversible extent. Such perspective prompts the United States as well as the European countries to exert urgent efforts in order to prevent imminent assault on Western leadership in the global system.

The strategy to be deployed for this purpose has crystallized in the last two years and consists in promoting major realignments of global and regional powers around the newly consolidated Western community. This strategy has as its main vehicle the normative influence wielded through redefining economic and political rules within and outside that community. And its practical implementation proceeds along two initiatives presented as a centrepiece of Barack Obama second presidency – Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP or ‘Economic NATO’) and Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

These projects are intended to form an exclusive circle of countries with close political proximity and high-level normative convergence. Within these frameworks new basic socioeconomic rules could be agreed that would further be extrapolated outwards to the markets of alien regions. Economically this circle would benefit from revitalized capital flows leading to essential reindustrialization of its economies, while normative expansion to third countries, spurred by their aspirations to have an access to the core zone, would enable the renewed West to shape external markets according to the own needs. Rising powers remaining outside the core, first of all China and Russia, would have to adapt to the new rules and make strategic concessions. Thus the centre-periphery structure of world economy and hence of world politics would be secured and Western leadership reasserted.

This strategy of economic and normative consolidation may be quite logical outcome of the tendencies unfolded in recent years where consensus on global rules is hardly attainable, and the economic weight of rising powers makes the increase of their formal representation and political influence in the global institutions inescapable. Perhaps normative impact is actually the only potentially efficient and not so costly leverage at the West’s disposal now. But in political sense it is quite risky and may bring destabilizing outcomes in no less scope than military force. In addition, its implementation is far from unproblematic given the trends dominating the transatlantic relations as well as in US interaction with Asian states over the past years.

Problems with implementation

Despite widely spread idea that crisis may generate radical renovation of domestic and foreign policies, the key global players demonstrate the opposite inclination towards sticking to decades-old reliable methods and ties. In this vein, after several not very convincing attempts at opening to the ‘new horizons’ Washington again returned to traditional alliances and partnerships that underpinned its international posture after the Second World War. Though shattered by centrifugal forces due to inevitable differentiation of interests, these alliances seem more promising in the sense of resource sharing and political solidarity in times when going-it-alone is not a viable option any more. Leaving aside an even more intricate constellation in the Trans-Pacific dimension of US policy let’s focus upon its transatlantic component.

The European states still remain the closest allies for the US since, as Simon Serfaty argues, no other two poles in the world may form a more complete partnership than the US and the EU[1]. But the situation looks not so unequivocal from the vantage point of the EU interests and priorities.

On the one hand, since the beginning of 2000s the EU has persistently aspired to forge a new quality of transatlantic partnership in order to maintain American security engagement in the European continent and retain own position and influence in transatlantic compact. But at the same time, European capitals exhibited little enthusiasm to the prospect of being drawn into American strategy of military interventions outside Europe. Ensuing indifference on the part of Washington generated anxiety over possible ‘transatlantic divorce’. Election of Barack Obama raised far-reaching hopes in this regard and led to amelioration of political atmosphere between the two shores of the Atlantic. But the actual shifts in relationship turned rather ambiguous, and the clear common vision of the future global order as well as of major international issues has not emerged[2], due to reasons not dissimilar to those of George W. Bush era. The kind of conceptual stalemate was aggravated by disagreements over anti-crisis measures and US announced ‘pivot to Asia’ threatening to further reduce American engagement in Europe.

On the other hand, in the post-bipolar era the European Union managed to accumulate important assets which however modest as they may seem provide it with a capability to pursue own strategy in the international scene. In the economic dimension the EU has long turned into US competitor allowing the analyst to speak about ‘transatlantic bipolarity’ in trade matters[3]. It also elaborated a full-fledged normative basis and consistently employs it as a power leverage in interactions with third countries precisely in the way the US envisage for TTIP. At last, in the past decade the EU built up its own web of relationships with neighbouring and remote regions which although not extremely influential lays the ground for its political autonomy, and renouncing it for the sake of supporting US global strategy looks fairly unreasonable.

Certainly, Washington put forward potent arguments behind its ambitious proposal. It portrays it as a last resort means that can avert EU economic stagnation and political downscaling and, in general, keep alive the euro zone and the European integration as a whole. Its appeal may be even greater if combined with substantial political benefits for particular member states, first of all Germany and Great Britain or for communitarian institutions like the European Commission.

But the real implications of this project should be assessed more carefully. The economic benefits of a suggested free trade area for both sides seem disputable and much depending upon its concrete parameters. Even in the best case the foreseen growth rate does not exceed 0,5 % of the EU’s GDP provided the complete opening of markets, which is far from guaranteed.

No more clarity is there in political and institutional side of the matter. Here the main challenge stem from the prospect that streamlined transatlantic integration may really absorb the European project and thus put a brake upon its movement towards a kind of federal model. The recent history already witnessed such a shift when EU-NATO cooperation forestalled essential deepening of European defence integration as was predicted by Hanna Ojanen[4].

An even more significant problem emanates from the process of converging of regulatory rules and eliminating non-tariff barriers. Up to now the EU rejected to make its normative basis subject to negotiations with a third state and it is hard to imagine how it may compromise it this time especially when several major agreements with solid normative components are underway with neighbouring countries.

The matter is complicated by the fact that the conceptual ground for such convergence is also out of sight. it is an open secret that the US and European practices of economic regulation and state-society relations differ to a serious degree. In essence, consolidation inside the supposed core circle may prove no easier to carry out than potentially projecting it outwards after that.

Apparently, all the above mentioned problems may find more or less satisfying solution provided sufficient political will. Initially there was abundant voluntarism on the part of the EU institutions to strike a lucrative trade deal but as far as the issue is discussed by foreign ministries in the course of setting the mandate for negotiations, numerous reservations arise which can postpone reaching agreement within the EU. And the calendar of the project is rather pressing – American side urges to sign the deal in 2015 and the European Commission dared to set the deadline even earlier in 2014 before the elections to the European Parliament. But these terms are hardly realistic.

Another serious nuance must be mentioned in this context. The post-bipolar era unleashed a process of rediscovering mental, societal and cultural divergences between US and the EU. Together with generational shifts in the United States away from Cold War mass affinity with Europe it produces a context where transatlantic proximity is not taken as granted by European and American public. Such considerations stipulate a necessity in blurring distinctions and reinforcing societal solidarity between the two shores of the Atlantic while accentuating the divergences and gaps with non-Western societies. Ostensibly, a recent wave of same-sex marriage campaign is an integral part of such tactics and it actually contributed to further cultural fence-mending with the outer word.

In sum, the key transatlantic question today is whether the US manages to impose China threat on the EU to an extent justifying economic and normative subordination like it managed to impose Soviet threat to subordinate it strategically sixty years ago. But the EU should realize that agreeing to the US proposal amounts to agreeing to the global strategy it promulgates, a strategy where there would be scarcely an autonomous role for the EU.

Global and regional risks

Normative strategies as such – and the EU has amply experienced it elsewhere – are accompanied by a range of problems starting from the problem of indirect political effect due to which normative influence in each concrete case depends on the reaction of the recipients. But the US ‘two-rings’[5] strategy contains even more serious risks for global governance that cannot be voluntarily dispelled.

As many observers pointed out, it threatens to subvert current multilateral order where general political compromise by all stakeholders is the imperative conditions for progress. In the first turn it will challenge global trade and development institutions, notably the WTO. For the EU that has ever been a protagonist of effective multilateralism inscribed even in its security strategy assuming its failure and contributing to it is a rather confusing political step[6]. It has ever constructed its foreign policy identity in terms of ‘the other West’ acting in contrast to US exceptionalism and arrogance to smooth the disproportions of world development. In fact, its ‘normative power Europe’ pretence is founded upon contrasting its international posture with that of US[7].

But the weakening of global institutions is only part of the problem. Their functionality is already fading and the time when their reforming alone could be sufficient for adjusting world power balance is over. But substituting them with bilateral deals is by no means an optimal solution. Preferring bilateral bargaining over multilateral compromise in order to sustain the power asymmetries may engender new round of balancing unchecked by any universal claims. It should be born in mind that asymmetry even on cooperative terms may endure only when recognised and accepted by both sides, otherwise it produces only exacerbation and desire to vindicate own status. In present day multipolar world it is not the case. Artificial fixing of global hierarchy through arbitrary limiting the range of countries participating in elaboration of economic rules will lead to antagonizing rising powers, entrenching polarization of the global system and setting a new overwhelming conflicting structure.

Perhaps for somebody conflicting structure may seem quite pertinent and even attractive owing to its disciplining effects but there are no reasons to deem that in such structure the West will be able to retain its pre-eminence indefinitely. Unilateral escalating tension and rising stakes would create significant pressure for the West itself which not all of its participators would be willing to withhold. Burden sharing has always been a delicate issue for transatlantic community ever containing an essential element of free-riding. Can Washington this time throw behind its design sufficient weight to bind its partners and simultaneously to impose necessary concessions on its rivals? The answer is far from obvious.

Moving global competition into normative realm is hardly a stabilizing development. Norms and values are deeply interlinked with societal worldviews and the rifts they promote elicit highly emotional reactions in the public-at-large. Instead of intended delaying the shaping of already crystallized multipolar landscape, normative differentiation may catalyze its emergence in an explosive balance-of-power mode deprived of meaningful multilateral restraints.

Russia: how to win the game without participating in it

The role of Russia in the US normative strategy is clearly defined as an outsider that at a certain stage will be compelled to accept the Western terms due to economic or strategic reasons. But even if the task of ‘coercion into cooperation’ of Russia is somehow secondary for this policy in comparison to containing China, Russian front nevertheless is important for elaborating and sophisticating the Western normative toolbox. Russia and East European states are primary objects of the EU normative strategy developed under Eastern Partnership programme which is wholly supported by Washington. And recent trends demonstrate a new round of intentional bringing of normative differences to the fore of the US and EU’s Russia policy.

Russia’s response to those trends is two-fold. On the one hand, Moscow adopted the tactics of overt rejecting Western allegations against its normative pitfalls and voices public criticism at the Western values and their practices that sometimes bring about the ever more visible societal distortions and imbalances. On the other hand, Russia embarked on creating an own normative platform within the framework of Customs / Eurasian Union. Such steps are useful though their implementation as for now looks clumsy and hardly improving Russian international and domestic profile.

But the game that is unfolding in world politics does not allow for purely defensive strategies. Normative fence-mending by the West cannot be matched by symmetrical fence-mending by Russia not least because Russian capabilities for that are below the necessary scope. What is more telling, for Russia trying to build own fences means playing the US game and pouring water at the mill of American projects. Russia is gradually getting entangled in normative competition over values, standards and worldviews before producing an alternative she can come up with.

That competition in itself is highly unfavourable for Russia forcing upon it a choice of either norm-contender role that she is yet not apt for, or norm-taker status that she cannot and should not reconcile itself with. Russia needs an own normative strategy which can be projected outwards and its shaping is currently underway but lacks two essential elements that constitute the principal underpinning of Western normative power – firstly, a pretended universal legitimacy of its norms and, secondly, high living standards of its society.

Russia will not gain much from simply criticizing Western norms or creating a set of technical rules relevant for restricted Eurasian space. No more will it benefit from adopting a staunch anti-Western posture. Delimiting mental and cultural distinctions from the West makes sense only with subsequent formulation of an own universal message and worldview upheld with perceptible improvement of socioeconomic situation in own society. Russian potential ability to offer such a message for its direct environment as well as for the world as a whole emerges its key political advantage in comparison to other rising powers. But proceeding from a defensive stance Russia will hardy be able to formulate it. To that end much can be drawn from its XIX century strategy of promoting universal value of Russian culture[8].

Of course, such normative strategy should proceed along adequate political and economic efforts aimed at preventing the disruption of the existing multilateral world order and emphasising the risks of such disruption together with the progress that can be achieved through multilateral consensus-building process. But under present circumstances relevant normative positioning is indispensable for successful pursuing of the likewise policy line.

Published in Journal of Eurasian Affairs


[1] Serfaty S. The West in a World Recast // Survival. – 2012. – Vol. 54, No. 6. – P. 33

[2] Alessandri E. Transatlantic Relations Four Years Later: The Elusive Quest for a Strategic Vision // The International Spectator: Italian Journal of International Affairs. – 2012. – Vol. 47, No. 3. – P. 20-36.

[3] van Oudenaren J. Transatlantic Bipolarity and the End of Multilateralism // Political Science Quarterly. – 2005. – Vol. 120, No. 1. – P. 1-32.

[4] Ojanen H. The EU and NATO: Two Competing Models for a Common Defence Policy // Journal of Common Market Studies. – 2006. – Vol. 44, No 1. – P. 57-76.

[5] Доктрина Обамы. Властелин двух колец / Авторский коллектив: С.М. Рогов, П.А. Шариков, С.Н. Бабич, И.А. Петрова, Н.В. Степанова http://russiancouncil.ru/inner/?id_4=1783#top

[7] Duke, Simon 'Misplaced 'other' and normative pretence in transatlantic relations' // Journal of Transatlantic Studies. – 2010. – Vol. 8, No. 4. – P. 315-336.

[8] Почепцов Г.Г. Cмислові війни в сучасному світі http://osvita.mediasapiens.ua/material/17967

L’ipotesi dell’Unione Transatlantica: breve analisi

politique internationale,union transatlantique,europe,états-unis,affaires européennes,globalisation,mondialisation,atlantisme,occidentisme

L’ipotesi dell’Unione Transatlantica: breve analisi

Alessandro Di Liberto

Ex: http://www.geopolitica-rivista.org

 

Nel 2007, l’allora presidente degli Stati Uniti George W. Bush, s’incontrò a Washington con la cancelliera Angela Merkel e il presidente della Commissione europea Josè Manuel Barroso. Non fu un caso se l’allora presidente di turno dell’Unione Europea fosse proprio la cancelliera tedesca, motivo dell’incontro fu infatti l’avvio di una trattativa per la creazione di un’area di libero scambio tra Stati Uniti ed Europa. Formalmente l’Unione dovrebbe riguardare l’ambito economico, ma la mole degli attori e degli interessi in gioco, rende dubbia la creazione di un partenariato puramente commerciale, ancor più dinanzi ai mutamenti internazionali che vedono il sorgere di nuovi agglomerati geoeconomici e geopolitici.

L’ascesa dei BRICS sulla scena internazionale, non più solo economica, ma anche politica, porterà insieme al mercato asiatico, baricentro dell’economia globale in questo secolo1, a un cambiamento sostanziale degli equilibri. Questi mutamenti stanno portando alla riforma di diverse organizzazioni internazionali, tendenza questa che s’intensificherà nei prossimi anni. La crisi economica sta promuovendo questa tendenza, i BRICS hanno già esposto il loro progetto di una banca per lo sviluppo, presentata come alternativa alla banca mondiale, bollata come tutelante degli interessi occidentali insieme al Fondo Monetario Internazionale (FMI) che attualmente vive una prima fase di riforme2.

Se il progetto andrà a buon fine, la futura banca, che avrà un capitale iniziale di 100 miliardi di dollari3, sarà la prima vera istituzione dei BRICS. Essa oltre a supportare la futura agenda politico-economica dei paesi di appartenenza, racchiuderà in se il valore simbolico di un futuro multipolare. Ennesimo fattore di coesione è il progetto per la creazione di un nuovo cavo sottomarino per le telecomunicazioni che collegherà direttamente in maniera esclusiva i membri BRICS per diramarsi in Africa e infine negli Stati Uniti4.

Ulteriore forza al cambiamento dell’ordine economico internazionale sta nel fatto che la Cina, secondo importatore di petrolio al mondo dopo gli Stati Uniti e primo consumatore di energia al mondo, ha siglato il più grande accordo petrolifero della storia con la Russia, secondo produttore dopo l’Arabia Saudita. Fatto nuovo e indicativo è l’accordo tra Mosca e Pechino di svolgere le transazioni in valuta cinese e non più in dollari. Al termine dell’ultima riunione dei BRICS a Durban in Sud Africa, è stata annunciata un’altra intesa tra la Cina e il Brasile con la firma di un accordo di currency swap che vincolerà le due parti all’uso delle proprie valute per i futuri scambi commerciali. Si va così a incrementare il flusso delle transazioni fuori dall’area del dollaro, ma si vanno anche “familiarizzando” gli scambi tra i paesi membri che commerciano con le proprie valute; oltre tutto la Cina, proprio nel 2007 ha superato gli USA, diventando il primo paese esportatore al mondo. Da notare che anche l’Iran, vende petrolio in yuan alla Cina a causa dell’embargo statunitense.

Sono dunque le materie prime a stimolare ed essere vettore del cambiamento che potrebbe portare al declassamento del dollaro come moneta di riferimento internazionale. Quasi sicuramente ciò accadrà già nel prossimo decennio, sostituito da una nuova moneta o dallo stesso yuan che si va ormai internazionalizzando5. La Cina nel 2009 ha proposto d’incrementare l’uso dei diritti speciali di prelievo (DSP), la moneta del FMI, con l’obiettivo di decentrare il dollaro dal sistema monetario internazionale cautelandolo dalle turbolenze a esso legate. L’appartenenza all’Eurasia di tre membri BRICS, ma anche di future economie come alcuni dei “prossimi undici”, la rendono inevitabilmente protagonista del cambiamento in atto. Il presidente cinese Xi Jinping, nella sua recente visita ad Astana, ha espresso l’intenzione di realizzare una cintura economica ricalcando l’antica via della seta6, un progetto ambizioso e che difficilmente potrà realizzarsi senza l’aiuto di Mosca. Il messaggio è comunque chiaro, la Cina reputa sempre più importante il consolidamento dell’Asia Centrale, non solo come corridoio energetico.

I mutamenti e le tendenze descritti hanno dato impulso al progetto di Unione Transatlantica con l’esplicito intento di mantenere lo status quo internazionale dell’Occidente che andrebbe altrimenti ridimensionandosi. Dopo il colloquio avvenuto nel 2007, è stato istituito il Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC), organismo bilaterale incaricato di dirigere e supervisionare i lavori preparatori, copresieduto da un funzionario di livello dell’Ufficio esecutivo del presidente degli Stati Uniti e da un membro della Commissione Europea. Primo obiettivo, creare un mercato comune che dia nuovo impulso alle due sponde dell’Atlantico; sembra però che le stime più ottimiste fornite dall’Eurostat, indichino per l’Europa un aumento del PIL solamente dello 0.5% mentre per gli Stati Uniti 0,4%.

Le stime risultano modeste per un progetto così ambizioso e ciò è dovuto al fatto che i rapporti commerciali tra UE e USA sono già in uno stato avanzato. Gli incrementi previsti deriverebbero solamente dalla riduzione o eliminazione dei dazi, cooperazione doganale e creazione di standard comuni attinenti alla conformità di sicurezza, salute e tutela dell’ambiente. Un ulteriore incremento deriverebbe dalla liberalizzazione dei servizi e dall’apertura del mercato americano degli appalti pubblici, attualmente tutelato da leggi protezionistiche. Il Consiglio Transatlantico ha elencato i settori nei quali l’Unione dovrebbe collaborare, realizzando il secondo obiettivo, cioè creare un blocco atlantico che competa a livello globale, avendo dunque finalità di tipo politico.

Gli ambiti nei quali si stringerà la collaborazione saranno:

  1. Cooperazione normativa (Valutazioni d’impatto, consumo)
  2. Diritti di proprietà intellettuale (Copyright Enforcement, brevetti, contraffazione e pirateria)
  3. Sicurezza del commercio (Dogane e sicurezza del commercio, agevolazione degli scambi)
  4. Mercati finanziari (Regolamentazione normativa del mercato dei capitali, dialogo normativo dei mercati finanziari UE-USA, Accounting Standards, Auditing)
  5. Innovazione e Tecnologia (Dialogo sull’innovazione, salute, Radio Frequency Identification “RFID”, ricerca biotecnologia e prodotti biotecnologici)
  6. Investimenti (Libertà di movimento per i capitali).

Nel 2009 il Consiglio ha creato un gruppo di lavoro con l’obiettivo di trovare la formula migliore per dare inizio alla realizzazione concreta dell’Unione. I lavori dell’High Level Working Group on Jobs and Growth (HLWG) si sono focalizzati prettamente sul commercio, l’occupazione e la crescita, incentrando i lavori alla ricerca delle politiche e delle misure adeguate alla creazione di un partenariato vantaggioso per ambo le parti. Il rapporto finale, pubblicato nel febbraio 2013, propone che i negoziati tra i rispettivi parlamenti sì indirizzino nell’immediato futuro sulle seguenti misure e politiche:

  1. Eliminazione o riduzione delle barriere al commercio come i dazi o quote di essi
  2. Migliorare la compatibilità dei regolamenti e delle norme
  3. Eliminazione, riduzione o prevenzione di ostacoli al commercio di merci, servizi e investimenti
  4. Cooperazione rafforzata per lo sviluppo di norme e principi su questioni globali di interesse comune per il raggiungimento di obiettivi economici globali condivisi.

L’Unione Transatlantica ricalca nei modi e nelle forme, quello che fu il progetto fondante la CEE. Il trattato europeo istituiva un mercato comune che si basava su quattro libertà fondamentali: libera circolazione delle persone, dei servizi, delle merci e dei capitali.

Il trattato aboliva poi i dazi doganali e i contingenti nei riguardi delle merci scambiate, si andava così istituendo l’unione doganale, primo passo necessario per avere una base su cui operare una politica commerciale comune. Ciò distingue una semplice area di libero scambio da una vera e propria unione, queste sono le linee guida che pur con alcune iniziali riserve, intende seguire l’Unione Transatlantica.

L’Europa e gli Stati Uniti sono però sostanzialmente differenti. Anche se negli ultimi decenni l’Europa ha passivamente subìto le politiche statunitensi, sussistono interessi e visioni differenti. In ambito economico possiamo trovare un’interessante prospettiva di quali sarebbero le tendenze da seguire, in un rapporto della banca americana J.P. Morgan, espressione di quella finanza deregolamentata che ha generato la crisi7. In esso si evidenzia la necessità di riformare il sistema sociale in alcuni paesi europei, considerato un ostacolo al sistema neoliberista al quale l’Europa non è ancora pienamente allineata; si auspicano riforme costituzionali di stampo liberista, potrebbero quindi arrivare pressioni per la privatizzazione della sanità e della previdenza sociale e per la totale cessione delle partecipazioni statali. In ambito militare, possiamo poi considerare il progetto del caccia F35, come prodromo di un nuovo modello di ulteriori e future cooperazioni per integrare le forze armate? È possibile.

Nei rapporti in ambito decisionale, bisogna poi rilevare un dato di non poco conto, gli USA a differenza dell’Unione Europea, sono uno Stato, di conseguenza agiscono e trattano come tale. Questo fattore potrebbe generare rapporti sbilanciati, di fatto, già accade all’interno della stessa UE tra gli stati membri, difficile che non accada nell’ipotetica Unione. Valutando ulteriormente le possibili evoluzioni, nello specifico, la stipulazione di futuri trattati che andrebbero a intensificare i rapporti in diversi ambiti, l’Europa in nome dei vincoli che ne deriverebbero, potrebbe essere trascinata in politiche a essa sfavorevoli, perdendo vantaggi acquisiti nel corso degli anni o mancando opportunità prossime all’orizzonte.

Dopo mezzo secolo di stallo originato dalla guerra fredda, vi è adesso la concreta opportunità per regionalizzare il commercio con la Russia, paese che oltre al suo mercato in forte espansione, detiene vastissime quantità di molteplici risorse, fattore che la rende fortemente complementare all’Europa bisognosa di esse.

Politiche estere statunitensi, come lo scudo spaziale, incrinerebbero nuovamente i rapporti, minimizzando il potenziale derivante da un fecondo partenariato che sarebbe così ridimensionato, spingendo ulteriormente la Russia a oriente, fattore che rischia seriamente di portare l’Europa a una marginalizzazione che la renderebbe una doppia periferia, l’una atlantica, l’altra eurasiatica. I tempi sembrano invece maturi, il Vecchio Continente vive oggi la concreta possibilità di ridisegnare il suo ruolo in una cornice d’indipendenza che le permetta di uscire dalla crisi arrivata da oltre oceano, svincolandosi da schemi totalmente desueti e alimentati da puro calcolo politico.

L’obiettivo è di rinnovare il blocco atlantico, formatosi da equilibri novecenteschi, con una rinnovata struttura in chiave multipolare, poggiandosi ancora una volta sul cardine europeo. Il pericolo odierno è dettato da una realistica inclusione europea nel grande spazio eurasiatico, ciò sarebbe un precedente storico che, di fatto, farebbe perdere agli Stati Uniti molto più del dominio monetario ed economico, forze centrifughe potrebbero portare alla disgregazione della stessa alleanza atlantica.

L’Unione Transatlantica si muove ulteriormente verso il consolidamento di posizioni acquisite tramite diverse istituzioni internazionali che si tenta di mantenere in vita ridisegnandone gli equilibri interni ed esterni. Vincolare l’Europa è fondamentale a tale scopo. Solo inglobandone nuovamente il mercato e le istituzioni, gli Stati Uniti potranno evitare la perdita definitiva dello status di potenza ottenuto dopo la seconda guerra mondiale. L’Unione concederebbe comunque agli USA un potere decisionale, anche nell’ipotesi che diverse organizzazioni internazionali fossero sostituite da altre più in linea con i tempi, quando la fase multipolare sarà giunta a un livello da poterle mettere seriamente in discussione. Questo ipotetico blocco geoeconomico potrebbe dunque essere uno degli attori internazionali nei prossimi decenni; quelle elencate sono comunque una minima parte delle dinamiche sia interne sia esterne che questo nuovo agglomerato potrebbe generare.

NOTE:
Alessandro Di Liberto è ricercatore associato dell'IsAG

1. L’OCSE prevede che la Cina diventerà la prima economia mondiale sorpassando gli Stati Uniti già nel 2016.
2. L’attuale riforma del FMI non modifica in maniera sostanziale gli equilibri interni: quote e governance dell’FMI – Il G20 ha contribuito in modo decisivo alla riforma delle quote di partecipazione al capitale e dei meccanismi di governo del FMI. In particolare, si è deciso di raddoppiare il capitale complessivo allocandolo in modo tale da accrescere di oltre il 6 per cento il peso relativo dei paesi emergenti più dinamici. Quando il nuovo assetto diverrà operativo, presumibilmente entro il 2013, i primi dieci azionisti del Fondo, che detengono da soli oltre la metà del potere di voto complessivo, saranno: Stati Uniti (16,5 per cento), Giappone (6,1), Cina (6,1), Germania (5,3), Francia (4,0), Regno Unito (4,0), Italia (3,0), India (2,6), Russia (2,6) e Brasile (2,2). Il peso dei principali paesi emergenti è destinato ad aumentare ulteriormente con la prossima revisione delle quote di capitale del FMI, che il G20 ha deciso di anticipare di due anni e concludere entro il gennaio del 2014. Per quanto riguarda la governance del Fondo, è stato deciso di modificare l’assetto del Consiglio di amministrazione, revocando il diritto dei cinque paesi più grandi a nominare direttamente i propri rappresentanti, che in futuro dovranno essere scelti tramite elezione, come già previsto per gli altri. I paesi europei hanno altresì deciso di rinunciare a due seggi, mettendoli a disposizione dei paesi emergenti.
3. BRICS agree to capitalize development bank at $100bn, "Russia Today", September 5, 2013.
4. bricscable.com.
5. Stime europee parlano di un accaparramento del 15% delle obbligazioni di valuta di riserva globale entro il 2020 che determinerebbe una caduta del dollaro dal suo livello attuale del 60% al 50%.
6. Il progetto prevede la realizzazione di un’area di libero scambio, cooperazione in campo commerciale e normativo, rimozione delle barriere che scoraggiano gli investimenti e consolidamento di una via energetica strategica per Pechino.
7. The Euro Area Adjustment: About Halfway There, "J.P. Morgan - Europe Economic Research", May 28, 2013.

jeudi, 10 octobre 2013

LE ELEZIONI TEDESCHE E LA POLITICA ESTERA

Merkel2222.jpg

LE ELEZIONI TEDESCHE E LA POLITICA ESTERA

Marco Zenoni

Ex: http://www.eurasia-rivista.org

Il 22 settembre scorso si sono tenute in Germania le elezioni per il rinnovo del 18° Bundestag. Le elezioni, seguite in tutto il mondo con una certa attenzione vista l’importanza crescente della Federazione tedesca nell’equilibrio economico e politico globale, hanno portato dei risultati da un lato inattesi, dall’altro prevedibili. Inattesa, ad esempio, è stata l’esclusione del Partito Liberal Democratico (Freie Demokratische Partei), un partito storico nel paese, che per anni ha avuto un importante ruolo di sostegno ai governi succedutesi al parlamento tedesco. Dagli anni ’90 era inoltre divenuto un importante alleato della CDU (Cristilich Demokratische Union Deutschland). L’esclusione del FDP dal parlamento tedesco implica dei cambiamenti nel nuovo esecutivo; il ministero degli esteri del passato governo Merkel era infatti tenuto da Guido Westerwelle, membro del partito liberal democratico. Altra esclusione, meno sorprendente, è quella dell’Alternative Fur Deutschland, il partito degli “euroscettici” che si pensava avrebbe potuto rosicchiare qualche voto alla CDU, costringendo quest’ultima a rivedere in parte le proprie politiche europeiste. Di fatto, pare invece che l’AFD abbia tolto voti decisivi proprio al partito liberal democratico.

Il risultato è dunque una vittoria della politica europeista “del rigore” promossa da Angela Merkel. La maggioranza ottenuta dalla coalizione CDU/CSU non si è rivelata tuttavia sufficiente ad un governo solitario, ed anche questa volta, per la formazione del governo, sarà necessaria la collaborazione di altri partiti. Secondo i maggiori analisti è certa la formazione della cosiddetta “Großer Koalition [1]” (la grande coalizione), ovvero una coalizione tra Socialdemocratici (SPD) e CDU. L’SPD, nonostante il netto ridimensionamento (25,7% il risultato, contro il 42,5% della CDU), avrà dunque con alta probabilità un ruolo importante nel prossimo governo, il cui insediamento si prevede andrà per le lunghe. L’alternativa resta un governo sostenuto dai Verdi, un’opportunità non del tutto rigettata ma sicuramente secondaria. Il ripiego su quest’ultimi potrebbe esclusivamente essere dovuto ad un eccessivo irrigidimento da parte della SPD, a cui l’ultima “Großer Koalition [1]” è costata l’attuale sostanzioso ridimensionamento. I dirigenti del partito Socialdemocratico hanno infatti dichiarato che questa volta una coalizione si potrà fare solo attraverso una decisa convergenza di obiettivi, e non rinunciando a fondamentali prerogative.
Il risultato dunque, è la stabilità. E’ molto probabile che non si vedranno cambiamenti sostanziosi nella politica tedesca, né nei confronti dell’Unione Europea, né rispetto alle questioni economiche e politiche globali. Vale la pena dunque di analizzare quali sono le proposte in materia di politica estera da parte dei due principali schieramenti, e quale è stata la politica estera effettiva dell’ultimo governo, politica che probabilmente non muterà. Nonostante la politica estera non abbia avuto un peso centrale nella campagna elettorale, se si esclude la questione europea, entrambi i partiti hanno delle proposte chiare in merito.

In sostanza, non sono molte le differenze fra i due programmi. In entrambi il punto centrale sembra essere la “sicurezza”, intesa come stabilità e cooperazione a vantaggio reciproco. Il programma della politica estera della CDU esordisce con un “il mondo bipolare è finito” e da qui muove alcune importanti considerazioni, economiche prima di tutto[1]. “Senza sicurezza non c’è sviluppo, e senza sviluppo non c’è sicurezza”, si potrebbe riassumere così la proposta politica del partito della Merkel, attento a cogliere ogni cambiamento in atto, e interessato a coglierne i frutti. Si muove dunque sempre da concezioni meramente economiche, sulla linea della stabilità e della cooperazione. Se quindi viene dato un peso centrale ai BRICS, a Russia e Cina in particolare, allo stesso tempo viene ribadita l’indiscutibilità dei rapporti con gli Stati Uniti e in particolare del ruolo della NATO. Per quanto riguarda la regione mediterranea e i mutamenti in atto, anche qui viene promossa la stabilità, la collaborazione con l’Unione Africana, la promozione dell’Islam moderato e l’intransigenza nei confronti dell’estremismo islamico. Se c’è una differenza, pur lieve, tra i programmi dei due partiti, questa è la centralità data agli Stati Uniti. Nel programma della CDU si legge un elogio degli Stati Uniti come “liberatori” dell’Europa dal giogo comunista e nazista, si ribadisce l’amicizia con Washington e l’intenzione di intensificare l’integrazione economica e l’interscambio commerciale. L’SPD, pur ribadendo a sua volta l’importanza dell’asse atlantico, sottolinea l’importanza dell’Asia, promuove l’intensificazione dei rapporti fra questa e l’Unione Europea. Allo stesso modo viene espressa la consapevolezza del ruolo positivo svolto dalla Cina nel continente africano, attraverso un efficiente dinamismo economico. Nel programma della SPD  inoltre vi è un chiaro riferimento alla questione siriana. La soluzione, viene scritto, può essere solo diplomatica, e non militare. L’uso della forza non viene ritenuta una soluzione adeguata. E’ inoltre necessario sostenere gli Stati arabi “in transizione”[2]. Un’ultima differenza, non di meno conto, è la posizione riguardo all’ingresso della Turchia nell’Unione Europea, una questione centrale se si considera il numero di immigrati turchi in Germania. Mentre infatti la CDU si oppone all’ingresso, promuovendo comunque la cooperazione economica, l’SPD si dice favorevole anche all’effettivo ingresso, affiancata in questo anche da Verdi e Die Linke[3].
Queste dunque le linee su cui si muoverà la Germania del futuro. In perfetta coerenza con quella politica cauta e quel paziente e intenso lavoro diplomatico svolto negli ultimi anni. Nessun sensibile cambiamento di rotta dunque.

Detto di quella che sarà la politica estera tedesca, vale la pena di muovere qualche passo indietro e analizzare quella che è stata la proiezione esterna della Germania negli ultimi anni di governo Merkel.

Unione Europea

La politica nei confronti dell’Unione Europea negli ultimi anni non è assolutamente mutata. La posizione resta quella dell’intransigenza e del rigore economico, nonostante l’ambiguità cui questa politica conduce. La Germania ha infatti bisogno di un’Unione Europea globalmente stabile e economicamente competitiva, seppur il rigore promosso dalla CDU non faccia che aggravare le condizioni economico-finanziarie dei paesi periferici (i cosiddetti PIIGS). Se infatti il rapporto economico con i paesi emergenti va rafforzandosi, l’export nella regione europea rimane fondamentale. Il che suggerirebbe una politica più morbida nei confronti dei vicini europei, oltre ad una cooperazione al fine di stabilizzare le economie e promuoverne lo sviluppo. Politiche finora accantonate dalla CDU. In questo senso un ingresso in parlamento dell’AFD avrebbe probabilmente potuto portare se non altro ad un leggero cambiamento, ammesso che il partito degli economisti, guidato da Bernard Lucke, avrebbe potuto avere un seppur minimo ruolo all’interno di un ipotetico governo. A queste ambiguità si aggiunga il totale disaccordo sulla proiezione esterna dell’Unione Europea, affrontata in modo diverso, se non opposto, dalle principali potenze europee. Basta vedere la netta opposizione tra la Francia e la Germania (rapporto che fra l’altro va indebolendosi anche a causa del rallentamento economico dei primi) sulle questioni della regione mediterranea, quella siriana su tutte. Francois Hollande è infatti stato sin da subito tra i più grandi sostenitori dell’intervento armato in Siria, mentre Angela Merkel si è sempre detta contraria a questa opzione, nonostante le recenti aperture al G20, dove comunque non è stato menzionato l’uso della forza.

ONU e missioni internazionali

L’ONU è il meccanismo diplomatico in cui la Germania si confronta ed impegna maggiormente, in piena coerenza con la ricerca di stabilità e cooperazione promossa negli ultimi anni. Da anni ormai la Germania chiede un seggio permanente in seno al consiglio di sicurezza, in virtù anche dell’apporto dato dal paese alle Nazioni Unite: con l’8% circa del contributo al budget dell’organismo, la Germania è infatti il terzo contribuente in assoluto, oltre a coprire finanziariamente per l’8% delle missioni di peacekeeping [4]. A ciò si aggiunga che tutt’ora la Germania è impegnata in Kosovo attraverso la missione internazionale KFOR, in Afghanistan con l’ISAF (missione questa per conto della NATO) e con l’UNIFIL, missione di peacekeeping in Libano.
La Germania partecipa esclusivamente a missioni a basso rischio e solo per missioni di pace. Un “pacifismo” spesso criticato all’interno della NATO, nonostante in Afghanistan la Germania abbia in impiego 4.100 soldati, 35 i morti totali nel corso degli anni[5].
D’altronde il ministro degli esteri in uscita, Guido Westerwelle, si disse a suo tempo contrario sia all’UNIFIL che all’intervento in Libia, cui infatti la Germania non ha partecipato. Stesso discorso vale per la Siria, altro paese in cui l’intervento viene fermamente condannato dal governo tedesco, nonostante Westerwelle stesso abbia dichiarato di non aver apprezzato alcuni atteggiamenti di Cina e Russia nel consiglio di sicurezza[6].

Stati Uniti

Seppur i rapporti con l’alleato d’oltreoceano non siano mai stati messi in discussione, le questioni recentemente emerse hanno senz’altro portato a qualche ripensamento. Prima di tutto, la Germania considera evidenti gli errori commessi dagli Stati Uniti negli ultimi anni (intervento in Iraq, in Libia, ad esempio). Ma il punto cruciale, non di rottura ma senz’altro uno scossone, è stata la questione dello spionaggio. Dopo lo scandalo della NSA infatti, la Germania ha cancellato il patto ormai cinquantennale di sorveglianza (patto firmato da Germania, Francia, Gran Bretagna e Stati Uniti). La Germania d’altronde si è scoperta come il paese europeo più spiato dall’alleato, e questo non è certamente un caso. E’ infatti risaputo il timore che si prova a Washington nei confronti della crescita economica tedesca, una crescita che finora rimane nei ranghi designati, ma che presto si troverà a doversi confrontare con delle scelte, inevitabilmente. Anche la recente amicizia fra Germania e Cina non è certo vista di buon occhio dagli Stati Uniti. Nonostante ciò Westerwelle stesso ha ribadito che con gli Stati Uniti gli interessi condivisi sono fin troppi per poter solo considerare una pur tiepida rottura. L’irrisolta questione siriana, l’espansione economica tedesca e la sempre maggior cooperazione con Russia e Cina avranno sicuramente come conseguenza qualche riflessione da parte di entrambi gli schieramenti.

Cina

Se per gli Stati Uniti la Germania come alleato, pur vacillando, rimane una sicurezza indipendentemente dal cancelliere insediato, la Cina ha guardato con apprensione alle recenti elezioni[7]. Secondo alcuni politologi cinesi infatti, il Partito Comunista Cinese temeva che una (seppur improbabile) vittoria da parte del centro-sinistra, con la formazione di un governo sostenuto potenzialmente da Verdi e Linke, avrebbe potuto portare alla ribalta alcune delle tematiche tradizionalmente portate avanti dall’occidente nel tentativo di penetrare negli affari interni cinesi, una su tutte la questione dell’indipendenza tibetana, un tasto su cui la Cina non ha intenzione trattare. Anche con il governo Merkel non sono tuttavia mancate le frizioni, ad esempio nel 2007, quando la cancelliera ricevette a Berlino il Dalai Lama, una provocazione agli occhi del governo cinese. Nonostante queste frizioni, il lavoro, considerato pragmatico, del governo tedesco viene visto positivamente dalla Cina e il rapporto fra i due paesi, già decisamente migliorato, sembra andare in direzione di un’ulteriore cooperazione, non solo in campo economico, seppur sia questo il settore preponderante.

Tenuta dunque considerazione di quella che finora è stata la politica tedesca e di quello che è il programma dei due principali partiti è senz’altro difficile prevedere drastici cambiamenti di rotta. Nonostante ciò, il nuovo governo si troverà comunque ad affrontare un equilibrio geopolitico in mutamento, un mutamento sostanziale che non potrà essere trascurato dal governo tedesco. Sarà dunque interessante vedere come risponderà la Germania alle problematiche che presto si presenteranno.

*Marco Zenoni è laureando in Relazioni Internazionali all’Università di Perugia


[1] Programma politico della CDU, consultabile online.
[2] Programma politico dell’SPD, consultabile online.
[3] http://temi.repubblica.it/limes/la-germania-al-voto-si-interroga-sul-suo-ruolo-nel-mondo/51996 [2]
[4] http://www.ispionline.it/it/articoli/articolo/europa/la-politica-estera-della-germania-9018 [3]
[5] Ibidem
[6] http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-with-german-foreign-minister-guido-westerwelle-a-900611.html [4]
[7] http://www.ispionline.it/it/articoli/articolo/europa/la-politica-estera-della-germania-9018 [3]

 


Article printed from eurasia-rivista.org: http://www.eurasia-rivista.org

URL to article: http://www.eurasia-rivista.org/le-elezioni-tedesche-e-la-politica-estera/20184/

URLs in this post:

[1] Großer Koalition: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/seehofer-kritisiert-spd-mitgliederbefragung-a-925032.html

[2] http://temi.repubblica.it/limes/la-germania-al-voto-si-interroga-sul-suo-ruolo-nel-mondo/51996: http://temi.repubblica.it/limes/la-germania-al-voto-si-interroga-sul-suo-ruolo-nel-mondo/51996

[3] http://www.ispionline.it/it/articoli/articolo/europa/la-politica-estera-della-germania-9018: http://www.ispionline.it/it/articoli/articolo/europa/la-politica-estera-della-germania-9018

[4] http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-with-german-foreign-minister-guido-westerwelle-a-900611.html: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-with-german-foreign-minister-guido-westerwelle-a-900611.html

[5]

Geopolitics and Islam

Mediterranean-China-Pipeline.jpg

Geopolitics and Islam

by Venyamin Popov & Yuri Mikhailov

Ex: http://orientalreview.org

The geopolitical changes that have taken place at the beginning of the 21st century within the nations of the Islamic world, and which would appear to be the culmination of many spontaneous factors, are, in fact, a manifestation of a very complex qualitative shift in the global balance of power.  For some political analysts, all of this can be attributed to merely the shortsighted games of politicians from the most powerful nation in the world, the United States, a legacy of their apparent intellectual shortcomings and strategic myopia.

Of course the Americans manage to have a hand in almost everything that occurs in the world today.  And to their credit, they are adept at defending their own national interests.  But in order to identify the true origins of the current disturbances, one must look atmore than just the events of recent years, taking a wider view of the historical perspective.

The United States is fully aware that in the Middle East, the entire twentieth century marched under the banner of the Islamic intellectual revival.  But that was brought home to the Americans all the more acutely during the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979, and later – at the dawn of the new millennium, during the upheavals caused by the tragic events of September 11, 2001.

After centuries of stagnation, Islamic intellectuals of the late 19th – early 20th centuries, including Islamic reformers, educators, and fierce opponents of colonialism, such as Jamal ad-Din al-Afghani, Abd al-Rahman al-Kawakibi, Syed Ahmad Khan, Muhammad Abduh, and Rashid Rida, as well as representatives of the Tatar Revival Movement (Jadidism), signaled the beginning of this intellectual renaissance.  They set out to try to make sense of the role Muslims would play in the new world that was to come, and, above all, to come to grips with the social essence of Islamic doctrine and designate the place of the state in the development and modernization of contemporary society.  Among the ideas of these reformers, the common thread was the notion that Islam should be at the forefront of human development, and that the Muslim world was obliged to ensure the well-being of not only its own faithful subjects, but also those of other faiths, a provision that had been the hallmark of the Caliphate since its golden age.

 

Dr_Ali_Shariati.jpg

Dr. Ali Shariati

In the mid-20th century these ideas were most clearly manifested in the teachings of Ali Shariati, who made a significant contribution to the development of the social doctrine of Islam.  The strict system of Shiite hierarchy helped spread Shariati’s views among Iranian clerics.

The fruits of these teachings were the Islamic revolution of 1979, under the direction of its charismatic leader, Ayatollah Khomeini.  In the past,the primary focus was on the backwardness of that semi-colonial state, but now the Islamic Republic of Iran is over thirty years old and has become a leading regional power that has made great intellectual strides. (For example, by 2013 Iran had risen to 17th place in the global academic rankings, and the pace of its scientific advances has outstripped almost all major countries, including China.  The state plans to increase public spending on research from the current 1% of GDP to 4% in 2029, and by 2019 the Iranians intend to send a man into space aboard their own rocket.) All this demonstrates the real potential of true political Islam.

The example of Iran, as well as the prospect that the residents of the Middle East might suddenly decide to channel their combined wealth and potential to serve the goals of their own development, has put the Americans more than a bit on edge.

The aging and weakening West has sensed a rival in the resurgent Islamic East.  In the real world, Shiite Islam has demonstrated a powerful capacity to mobilize, plus the ability to defend its own interests (although in fact, Shiites make up only 15% of the 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide). If Sunni Islam were likewise able to show evidence of such success, American analysts predict that the consequences could pose a serious challenge to the United States.  It is no coincidence that many US politicians have been open about the fact that the more the Islamic nations are rocked by internal wars and strife, the easier it will be for the US to ensure its hegemony.  Thus, the primary goal of the United States at this stage is to split the Islamic and Arab world as much as possible and to take advantage of any means necessary to promote the emergence of new hotbeds of ongoing tension, including the use of provocation in regard to weapons of mass destruction.  This leads to the desire to create docile regimes, regardless of whether they are religious or secular, republics or monarchies.  The Americans’ reasoning is simple: if the Middle East is left undisturbed even for a decade, a dangerous and virtually uncontrollable global player would emerge that could choose how to avail itself of its available energy resources, in addition to potentially withdrawing all of its assets from foreign banks and repositories, leading to unprecedented disruptions and crises for the West’s economy.  To prevent this, regional interstate and intrastate conflicts are regularly triggered, and time bombs are systematically planted under the region.  The initiators of these actions do not shy away from any method of inciting inter-ethnic, inter-national, or inter-religious crises, or direct military interventions.  All in all, Americans are very well aware of what they are doing and why.

An analysis of reports in the Western press from recent weeks shows the prevalence of the idea of the futility of the political aspirations of Sunni Islam, as evidenced by the failed attempt of the Muslim Brotherhood to govern the state.  There is a pervasive notion that Sunnis and Shiites will always exist in a state of eternal conflict, a viewpoint that could only have one realistic outcome – a period of growing tension culminating in a phase of mutual annihilation.  From time to time, there seems to be an accidental eruption in the global media of the voices of those who feel that the Shiites are not only not Muslims, but the outright heretics, amoral sectarians and consummate fanatics who do not deserve to live.

A deliberate campaign is being waged to marginalize Islam, spreading assertions that Islam is not capable of developing its own positive agenda and that Islam always preaches violence, blood, vandalism, and the destruction of traditional society.  This propaganda is being quite skillfully disseminated at both the level of academic research as well as through the mass media.

The current geopolitical reality is such that the decline of Western civilization forces its elite to seek ever-newer sources of “rejuvenation.”  The United States is not as concerned with rescuing its allies amidst the unfolding global economic and civilizational crisis, as with ensuring its own survival and preserving its hegemony, even at Europe’s expense.  Hence its desire to draw Europeans into the conflicts in the Middle East, while at the same time safeguarding its own homeland security.

Despite statements by officials in Washington, the actions of the US suggest that it is essentially contributing to the growth of Islamic radicalism, which it uses as a tried-and-true mechanism to undermine the position of any potential competitor.  They are literally contriving to generate hotbeds of extremist, terrorist activities in Syria, Iraq, Libya, and many other countries, and the flames of all kinds of animosity are being kindled.  They are calculating that the internal struggle will become extremely drawn out, exhausting the region and bleeding it dry, which will utterly debilitate any potential rivals or competitors.

It seems that Washington believes that the military and economic power of the US, as well as its geographical position,will enable it to keep itself above the fray, thus retaining its pivotal role in international politics.

But in fact, dreaming up all these schemes is not without its dangers, because, as the episode with the Tsarnaev brothers and the trial of Maj.Nidal Hasan has shown, such a policy, despite the careful calculations that would seem to be behind it, will eventually backfire onto the US itself.  In addition, “challengers to the regime” can emerge within the system, and we are already witnessing the first seeds of that phenomenon in the actions of Pfc.Bradley Manning and the former NSA employee Edward Snowden.

Many Islamic medieval norms are not only in clear conflict with twenty-first-century realities, but give stir up tensions within society.  And the problem here is not found in religion, but in the lack of a creative, constructive approach to understanding how the teachings of the Prophet should be viewed from a modern perspective.

The lack of any real progress in the creative development of the social teachings of Islam, and in some cases those processes have been deliberately handicapped – even amid the claim that it is being done for society’s benefit – is, in fact, clearing the path for new, radical groups.  A vicious circle is formed.  The situation is reaching the point in which Muslim youth look for guidance to the ideas expressed by the conservative ulamas, who claim that this conflict between a medieval system of values and the challenges of the modern age can only be eradicated by force, which includes violence and terror against intractable “unbelievers.”

These are the circumstances under which Russia is increasingly engaging with the Islamic world, discrediting the West’s projects (which are detrimental for all mankind) to manipulate countries and peoples, information and public opinion.  Unlike the West, Russia is not only uninterested in splintering or reshaping the Islamic world, it demonstrates a consistent, firm commitment to upholding that region’s unity and integrity.

Russia is not interested in any type of bias – either toward West or the East.  We want stability and prosperity – in both the West and the East, but not at the expense of the welfare of one over the other.  We do not need a neighbor whose “house is on fire.”

In the current uneasy atmosphere, Russia calls upon the West to: “Stop trying to split the Islamic world,” while urging the Islamic world, in the name of the Qur’an and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad: “Do not be enemies of one other!”

Veniamin Popov – director of the Center for the Partnership of Civilizations at MGIMO (the school of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs)

Yuri Mikhailov – editor-in-chief at Ladomir,Academic Publishers

Source in Russian: REGNUM

mercredi, 09 octobre 2013

The Western Challenge to Eurasian Integration

kir0.jpg

The Western Challenge to Eurasian Integration

by Nikolai Malishevski

Ex: http://www.strategic-culture.org

Recently, official Warsaw and not-so-official Stockholm have taken a number of steps to reinforce their successes in the East in order to gain new bargaining chips for the upcoming Eastern Partnership summit in Vilnius in November 2013, which will be devoted to developing a unified policy on the East for European countries. According to a statement by EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Catherine Ashton, this summit will be «an opportunity to deepen the relations» between the EU and the member countries of the Eastern Partnership. The fact that the heads of all the EU member states plan to attend also speaks to that.

The Eastern Partnership, initiated by Washington and Brussels, was formed at the suggestion of Warsaw and Stockholm after the failure of the Georgian aggression in Ossetia. Essentially it has become a kind of continuation of GUAM, which demonstrated its military and political inadequacy in August 2008. The participation of Belarus and Armenia (which are not members of GUAM) is an attempt at a kind of «revenge» for the military and political defeat of Georgia. You could call the Eastern Partnership a tool for energy colonialism, turning Russia into a mere supplier of raw materials to the West, «pushing» it into the northeast of the Eurasian continent and creating a «sanitary» energy collection zone along its borders from the Black Sea to the Baltic. It's not for nothing that many in Russia consider the Eastern Partnership a kind of 'calque' from Adolf Hitler's concept of gaining Lebensraum in the East.

The main players in the project are Sweden in the north, Poland in the west, and NATO member Turkey in the south… Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova have been assigned to Poland, with its neosarmatism and the sympathies of Catholics. To Turkey with its neoturanism, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia have been assigned (and to some extent the Central Asian republics - unofficially, through the personal business interests of their leaders in Ankara, as in Kyrgyzstan, for example). The Scandinavians, with the support of international structures like the Soros Foundation, are taking an avid interest in Karelia, the Kola Peninsula, the islands of the Gulf of Finland and their mineral and forest resource, as well as opposing Russia’s plans in the Arctic.

North. Overseen by Sweden, acting through Finland, which is conveniently located close to the «northern capital»« St. Petersburg. Operations are conducted using the following tools: 

a) Swedish-speaking citizens of Finland who have close ties with the Finnish political elite, the public servants, and who openly express anti-Russian revanchist views, such as Mikael Storsjo, the publisher of the terrorist site Caucasus Center and chairman of the Pro-Caucasus Association, who was convicted of illegally dispatching dozens of terrorists, including relatives of Basayev; 

b) media structures such as the Sweden-based Web center of the site Caucasus Center (the site itself, which has been declared a terrorist resource by the UN, was operating there as well until it was moved to Finland in 2004) and anti-Russian Finnish media activists (Kerkko Paananen, Ville Ropponen, Esa Makinen, Jukka Malonen, etc.) who support the «white ribbon opposition» in Russia; 

c) public structures such as the Pro-Caucasus Association, which is registered in Sweden, the Finnish-Russian Civil Forum (Finrosforum, Suomalais-venalainen kansalaisfoorumi), and U.S-oriented human rights organizations like the Helsinki Group, Amnesty International, etc..

Financing comes from the north, which borders directly on Russia via Finland (from which, in a similar calque, the «export of revolution» and money for it from American and European bankers came even before 1917), and there is an attempt to unite all anti-Russian forces in Europe and Russia itself - from Chechen terrorists, for whom «Turkish transit» is organized to the motley «white ribbon» opposition (supporters of Nemtsov, Navalny, Limonov, Kasparov, etc.).

West. Poland, which does not share a border with Russia (except for the Kaliningrad enclave), operates along the perimeter of a broad geopolitical «arc». From Kaliningrad in the north (already called «Królewiec» by Warsaw diplomats on the official site of the Consulate General of Poland), through Belarus and Ukraine, which are being considered as potential «friendly» territories in the east, to the Crimea in the south. 

With regard to Ukraine and Moldova, the ambitions of Warsaw, which has taken a course toward the creation of a fourth Rzeczpospolita and has its own vision of the future of the lands on Ukraine's right bank, to a great extent coincide with those of Romania and Hungary. Catholic Poland is essentially coordinating its policy with coreligionist Hungary, as their points of view on a number of issues coincide and complement one another, allowing them to develop a common strategy. With regard to Belarus, something similar (with some reservations) is happening with the Latvians and Lithuania, including support via Scandinavia for the pro-Western opposition in Minsk, which has found understanding from the «white ribbonists» and public servants who sympathize with them in Russia.

In the first half of 2013 the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), the «thought factory for the European Union» which conducts analyses on foreign policy and security, distinguished Poland in five areas of foreign policy. Poland was recognized as a leader in implementing joint projects in the framework of NATO and the Common Foreign and Security Policy and was praised for its (visa) policy with regard to Russia, Ukraine and Moldova and for its foreign policy for «the most activity for the democratization» of Belarus. Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski, after a discussion of the implementation of «Eastern Partnership» programs at a meeting of EU foreign ministers in Brussels, reported (18.02.2013) that his country's eastern policy has met with numerous successes, saying, «Note that we are talking with our Eastern partners about association agreements and not about war. At present, the East is a place where Europe is conducting successful policy. In only remains to formalize these successes in the form of bilateral agreements».

South. In the south Warsaw operates in unison with Ankara, since the sympathy of the Tatar population of the Crimea toward NATO member Turkey facilitates the mutual understanding of local Turks and NATO member Poland. In 2013 several events took place, such as a press conference for the protection of the rights of Crimean Tatars, in which not only the chairman of the Union of Polish Tatars, Selim Chazbiewicz; the head of the communications department of the Crimean Tatar Majlis, Ali Khamzin; and others took part, but also influential Polish politicians such as Lech Wałęsa and former Minister of Internal Affairs Jadwiga Chmielowska. Previously in Simferopol a visa application center and a Consulate General of the Republic of Poland were opened which today demonstrate noticeable activity in the public and cultural life of the autonomous region and Sevastopol, especially in the area of collaborating with the Crimean Tatar Majlis and discrediting the Russian movement. And Poland became the second country after Russia whose consulate in the Crimea received the status of a consulate general. 

From Turkey, via Finland and its citizens of Swedish origin, transit has been organized for extremists who kindle the flame of separatist jihad in the «southern underbelly» of Russia (including the terrorists of Shamil Basayev's battalion of Chechen suicide attackers «Riyad-us Saliheen»).  The Scandinavians coordinate activities with the Turks in the media sphere as well. For example, the Web administrator of the terrorist site Caucasus Center, Islam Matsiev, came to Finland from Turkey. On the Turkish side, Basayev's IHH foundation is collecting funds in Turkey, Dubai, the U.S., England and France to finance the international terrorist network called the «Caucasus Emirate», whose mouthpiece is Caucasus Center (the official representative in Turkey is Musa Itayev, and in Finland it is Islam Makhauri, the brother of Rustam Makhauri - the «Minister of Defense of the Caucasus Emirate», Doku Umarov's personal bodyguard and the representative of terrorist Ali Taziev («Magas».). 

The level of an event held in Washington in late June 2013 at one of the oldest and most authoritative «think tanks» in the U.S., the Heritage Foundation, dedicated to the future of the Eurasian Union and «protecting vitally important interests of the U.S. and its allies in this sphere» with the participation of diplomats, scholars and analysts, goes to show that Western strategists are no longer hiding the fact that they are wary of and closely observing events in the former Soviet Union. And they are not idle in doing so, but are actively building their own toolkit for resisting the rebirth and integration of Eurasia.

 

mardi, 08 octobre 2013

Brazil and China's Unstoppable March through Latin America

XxjwsfF000085_20110303_BJPFN1A001.jpg

Brazil and China's Unstoppable March through Latin America

by Nil Nikandrov

Ex: http://www.strategic-culture.org

The conflict situation which has arisen between Brazil and the United States due to espionage by the NSA, the CIA and other intelligence agencies has highlighted the existence of deep crisis tendencies in the relations between the «only superpower» and Latin America. The provocation of wars in Africa and Asia in order to establish control over hydrocarbon-rich countries, the early successes of this aggressive strategy and the illusion that they can get away with anything has made the U.S. ruling elite rather giddy with success.  Washington's emphasis on brute force has led to a noticeable «dumbing down» (there's no other word for it!) of its foreign policy, using threats instead of constructive dialog and reasoned arguments. Even outward political correctness has become a useless anachronism for American diplomats.

This explains the hard-line response of Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff to the Obama administration's virtual refusal to apologize for its espionage in the country and guarantee that it would not occur again in the future. To the Brazilian leadership, all Washington's attempts to avoid concrete discussion of the problem are equivalent to a display of imperial haughtiness and hostility. If the Brazilians had any hopes for an «equal partnership» with the United States in the 21st century, they are now gone. Theoretically, it is just such a partnership that could have helped Washington to maintain its position in South America. However, the Obama administration fumbled its chance, thus guaranteeing the further penetration of extra-regional powers into the continent.

On the backdrop of the Syrian failure, which revealed Washington's dirty methods of organizing «humanitarian interventions», the Obama administration's failure in Brazil is not so noticeable, but it is a momentous one for the countries of the Western Hemisphere. The Brazilians have finally shown publicly that they are displeased with the hostile actions of the U.S. Previously, difficult issues were kept quiet and, at Washington's insistence, were resolved «through diplomatic channels», that is, they were relegated to oblivion. U.S. diplomats and intelligence agents took the Brazilian leadership's political correctness for weakness and a lack of political will. Several times (during the presidency of Inacio Lula da Silva) the Brazilian government limited itself to «moderate reprimands» even when they had proof of specific subversive activities by Americans. It is sufficient to remember the U.S. intelligence operations for preparing the seizure of the Amazon basin on the pretext of «preserving» strategic reserves of fresh water «in the interests of humanity».

Amid increasing criticism of the U.S. in Brazilian society, President Dilma Rousseff is expanding relations with China, this time without the traditional glances at Washington's possible reaction. China, one of Brazil's partners in BRICS, is skillfully making use of this alliance's potential to strengthen its positions in the country. The Obama administration has no leverage to hinder this. All of the U.S.'s resources are being used to keep the positions it has won in oil-producing countries in Africa and Asia and on maintaining pressure on Syria and Iran. The U.S. is gradually losing political and economic influence in Latin America, and the vacuum is being filled by powerful competitors.

If one were to analyze the intensity of visits of high-ranking Chinese leaders to the continent, Beijing definitely holds first place in this regard. As a rule, the visits are well-planned and end in the signing of specific agreements, and, most importantly, these agreements are subsequently implemented. At the turn of the millennium, the Chinese promised Latin America that it would implement a program for capital investments in the region's economy. The program is being carried out successfully, from Mexico to Chile and from Ecuador to the island states of the Caribbean Sea. Without fuss, step by step, the Chinese are opening up the region, demonstrating the effectiveness of their industry, their aerospace potential, their technologies for manufacturing modern armaments, and their agriculture. The United States can only conduct an increasingly noisy campaign about the growth of the «yellow peril» on the continent, but the Chinese barely react to it. They are confident in their strengths. And that is one more proof that China has come to the Western Hemisphere, including to the U.S., for the long term, or more accurately, for good.

Experts predict the further consolidation of Brazilian-Chinese relations. Dilma Rousseff is essentially giving a signal to other countries: favorable conditions are now taking shape for getting out from under imperial guardianship and seeking alternatives for development and collaboration without ultimatums and dictates. Alliances of states have been created in Latin America, such as UNASUR, SELAC, ALBA and others, for which Brazil's fundamentally independent foreign policy and economic course will mark a rebirth. Previously, many of these alliances' decisions were made with a backward glance at Brazil's position in order not to exacerbate relations with Washington. In particular, this was the case with the issue of creating a South American defense system. The need for one has come to a head. Sooner or later, the United States will be pushed out of foreign territories, but it will resist this with all its might. Is that not why dozens of U.S. military bases have already been created in Latin America?

 

Entrevista a Geidar Dzhemal

Ex: http://paginatransversal.wordpress.com & Nakanune.ru

Los ministros de exteriores de Rusia, EE.UU. y Siria están discutiendo la posibilidad de destruir las armas químicas, lo que le quita motivos a los EE.UU. para llevar a cabo el ataque con misiles. El cabeza del Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores ruso Serguei Lavrov en cuestión de nada se ha convertido en uno de los políticos más populares e influyentes, después de “haber atrapado” hábilmente a sus colegas estadounidenses en las redes que ellos mismos habían colocado. Sin embargo, ello no significa que el conflicto esté resuelto o próximo a solucionarse. En el mundo quedan bastantes fuerzas influyentes dispuestas a atacar a Siria, pero también la influencia de Rusia, China e Irán se hace cada vez más patente. Sobre quién se opone al ataque exterior, sobre los que se enfrentan a ellos, sobre el papel desempeñado por Serguei Lavrov y John Kerry y la diplomacia secreta, y sobre cómo se va a transformar la región del Próximo Oriente ha hablado con Nakanune.ru el politólogo, filósofo, presidente del Comité Islámico de Rusia Geidar Dzhemal.

Nakanune.ru – En el “Foro de Valdai” uno de los expertos dijo que la cuestión siria es el asunto diplomático más complejo desde los tiempos de la caída del telón de acero. ¿Está de acuerdo con semejante valoración?

Geidar Dzhemal - No es así en absoluto. En los tiempos del “telón de acero”, en mayor o menor medida, existía cierto enfrentamiento entre el campo socialista y el mundo capitalista. Ahora asistimos al simulacro del enfrentamiento y la confabulación real a nivel de la diplomacia secreta, porque la decisión de no atacar a Siria la tomaban a la vez Obama, Putin, Irán y, claro está, también China que está entre los bastidores, que no alza la voz, pero el factor de cuya presencia es muy real en todos los sentidos. Todos los sujetos mencionados estaban interesados en que el ataque no se llevara a cabo. Entre los interesados en que sí se produjera estaban la Unión Europea, la euroburocracia, el Fondo Monetario Internacional y algunos personajes en el escenario del Gran Oriente Próximo, quienes estaban interesados en la derrota de Asad por motivos de prestigio u otros, como es el caso, por ejemplo de Arabia Saudí y de Turquía. Para ellos la derrota o el conflicto con Occidente, con Obama sobre el tema de Siria equivalía a la bajada del rating de su régimen en casa, lo que iba a crearles problemas en política interior. Para Arabia Saudí además es importante el hecho de que no está atada al actual inquilino de la Casa Blanca, sino al segmento radical republicano de la clase política de los EE.UU., que está orientado hacia una política nacional-imperial, del tipo del Imperio Romano. En tal caso Arabia Saudí se convierte en el país clave en la región o conserva este estatus. Esos clientes: la burocracia de la UE, los especuladores del FMI, los sauditas y los turcos se orientaban nítidamente hacia el ataque contra Asad. Además de ellos existen también los círculos que entienden perfectamente que en cuanto a la imagen, la renuncia al ataque significa rebajar el estatus de Occidente como centro de la civilización, como árbitro, como el modelo-matriz global de la civilización contemporánea, es decir que el Occidente deja de ejercer la hegemonía. Pero a Obama esto le trae sin cuidado porque persigue otros objetivos.

Nak – ¿Cuáles?

GD – Obama quiere conservar los EE.UU. como el centro emisor del dólar, que emite la moneda de cambio para la economía mundial, que no tiene alternativas, y así poder conservar el papel de árbitro para los EE.UU. Pero también comprende que el papel de arbitraje de los EE.UU. no puede conservarse ejerciendo el imperialismo romano de tipo arcaico, sino poniendo el sistema mundial del dólar al servicio de la recuperación de la economía real en los Estados Unidos y algunos otros aspectos. Para eso hace falta replegarse de la serie de conflictos iniciados por la administración republicana. Es su objetivo personal, no se trata del superobjetivo de la élite estadounidense que está dividida en varios clanes.

Nak – Con Obama la cosa está clara ¿pero cómo interactúan Irán, Rusia y China?

GD- Estos países forman un bloque unido, dentro del cual, por supuesto, hay diferentes posturas y estatus, pero en este bloque, aunque le sorprenda a la opinión pública, domina la República Popular China. Siguiendo su costumbre, RPCh. actúa desde detrás de los bastidores, como figura en la sombra, que presuntamente se une a las propuestas de Moscú en el Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU, pero en realidad el factor principal, que determina la dirección de este bloque es China, al menos para Rusia. Precisamente China posee las palancas de influencia política, conexiones necesarias al sistema mundial, el recurso político-militar y económico, que permite a la actual dirección de Pekín tener una política independiente propia.

Irán es un país totalmente autosuficiente al día de hoy, prácticamente único en el Próximo Oriente que mantiene su seguridad alimentaria, que no pueden romper las sanciones, y que además forma parte de los diez países de mayor potencial militar. Irán prácticamente no tiene análogos, pero el hecho se suele olvidar, lo siguen percibiendo como si fuera un país tercermundista de Oriente Próximo. Irán es una civilización independiente con 2,5 mil años de historia que ejerció su influencia sobre la formación de la conciencia europea, de la civilización europea hace dos mil años, porque las capas culturales iranís formaron al Imperio Romano tardío y ejercieron influencia sobre toda la región mediterránea. La tradición religiosa persa, su tradición preislámica moldeó el rostro de toda la posterior civilización occidental. Irán es un país muy poderoso e influyente, al que no lograrán aislar las sanciones de ningún tipo. Ayer 17 empresas iranís por decisión judicial fueron liberadas de las sanciones en la Unión Europea, antes hubo otros casos similares. De facto, sin airearlo están desmontando las sanciones, teniendo en cuenta que además tenían un carácter en gran medida declarativo, porque incluso en los momentos más duros del aislamiento de Irán y de las presiones externas las empresas estadounidenses seguían sacando petróleo de Irán, sin hablar de China, que seguía comerciando con Irán abiertamente.

Así que no es correcto comparar la situación actual con la de la “cortina de hierro”, hoy todos los enfrentamientos dentro del sistema tienen un carácter simulado y procuran camuflar la confabulación real, la diplomacia secreta, que por supuesto también existía durante el período del enfrentamiento entre los dos campos, pero no hasta ese punto. Entonces este sistema estaba polarizado y era más sólido que ahora. En la actulidad hay más de dos factores, cada uno de los cuales tira para su lado, hoy, como mínimo son tres y, posiblemente, más. Actualmente el sistema es más blando, por eso la necesidad de la diplomacia secreta es mayor, y como bien dijo el ministro de exteriores de Francia Laurent Fabius, hoy no existe ni la unipolaridad, ni la bipolaridad, ni la multipolaridad. Hoy existe la ceropolaridad, lo que significa que ningún país, incluyendo a los EE.UU., Unión Europea y la RPCh. puede ejercer la influencia definitiva sobre el transcurso de los acontecimientos. Ninguno. Lo que significa que ha aumentado la necesidad de la diplomacia secreta, porque en la época bipolar, la URSS y los EE.UU. se turnaban y podían ejercer cada uno por separado su influencia en el curso de los acontecimientos.

Por ejemplo, gracias a la URSS los EE.UU. perdieron la guerra en Vietnam. Gracias a la URSS y la a confabulación de la diplomacia secreta en Francia en 1968 no se hundió el régimen capitalista y los comunistas no llegaron al poder – ese fue el pacto entre Moscú y Washington. Hay bastantes ejemplos así. Pero si en el primer plano está la diplomacia secreta y la confabulación, entonces hablar del triunfo de la así llamada diplomacia “blanca”, es decir de la diplomacia abierta, oficial, es simplemente ridículo. Esto se hace para la opinión pública, para los espectadores, para crear un espacio unívoco, no es más que eso.

Nak – A muchos les había sorprendido que los EE.UU. hicieran caso de la propuesta de Rusia y suspendieran el ataque por aire. Ahora Serguei Lavrov y John Kerry está discutiendo sobre la cuestión de las armas químicas. Algunos expertos aseguran que Lavrov sobre esa ola se ha convertido en un político de nivel mundial. ¿Qué lugar en esta combinación ocupa la cuestión de las armas químicas?

GD – En este caso puede observar cómo un show simulado lleva a las valoraciones exageradas e igualmente simuladas. En primer lugar, la iniciativa sobre las armas químicas, como todos recordarán, se debía a Kerry, quien siguiendo las órdenes de su jefe Obama apareció y anunció que “si fuera posible que Asad renunciara a su arsenal químico, entonces, tal vez, nosotros consideraríamos la posibilidad de no llevar a cabo el ataque, pero Asad no lo hará nunca – es imposible”. Está claro que los políticos de semejante nivel oficial nunca hablan por hablar, no se ponen a divagar sobre lo que podría suceder. Está claro que fue una bola lanzada que había que recoger. En seguida tras esta declaración Lavrov dijo: “le tomamos la palabra a los EE.UU.”. Pero los Estados Unidos no podían dirigirse directamente a Rusia y decir: “Por qué no hacemos una jugada que nos quite la responsabilidad de asestar el ataque, porque había una “línea roja” con respecto a las armas químicas, y nos están empujando fuerzas, atadas a la UE y al FMI, para meternos en este asunto. Vamos a hacer juntos esta jugada”. Entonces ya no sería la diplomacia secreta.

Nak – ¿Y cómo ha trabajado en este caso la diplomacia secreta?

GD – La diplomacia secreta es cuando esta iniciativa de Kerry, expresada en modo conjuntivo con gran dosis de duda, se le pasa a Irán. Irán habla con Asad, después de lo cual se dirige, en secreto, a Rusia, y le propone intervenir con la iniciativa de poner las armas químicas bajo control. Y aunque la primera frase fue vocalizada por Kerry, pero Rusia dice que “le toma la palabra a los EE.UU.”. Son juegos de niños. Por otro lado, está totalmente claro que Irán no podría tomar iniciativa sin los EE.UU., porque cómo iban a saber los iranís que el consentimiento de Asad en entregar las armas químicas realmente suspendería el ataque contra Siria. Para eso hacen falta garantías secretas, pero sólidas. Resulta que Irán mantiene la comunicación directa con los EE.UU. y esas garantías fueron dadas – si las iniciativas son presentadas como la “toma de la palabra”, entonces los EE.UU. tienen la posibilidad de no atacar a Siria. A continuación Irán ya seguro se lo dice a Rusia, Lavrov recibe el encargo, y junto con Kerry los dos toman el pelo a la opinión pública mundial, como dos héroes, dos caballeros, que han salvado el mundo de la guerra, del abismo que se habría abierto de haber sido asestado el ataque con misiles. Está claro que se trata de un show, sin el cual la diplomacia actual no puede funcionar, porque la política actual se ha convertido en puro simulacro, debido a que el 5% del peso pertenece a los diplomáticos “blancos” y el 95% a varios escalones de la trastienda secreta, cuando todas las cuestiones se resuelven entre los bastidores fuera de alcance de la opinión pública. Y, por cierto, la cosa no ha empezado ayer. Y si alguien afirma que no es más que conspirología, entonces, perdonen, pero en 1918 el camarada Lenin hizo público el acuerdo diplomático secreto de la Entente, anterior a la Primera Guerra Mundial. Así que vayan a decir que todo es conspirología y que se lo había inventado.

Nak – ¿La acusación de los Estados Unidos de que estuvimos suministrando armas químicas a Siria de la que durante toda la semana se estuvo defendiendo Serguei Ivanov, también forma parte del espectáculo diplomático?

GD – Todo lo que se hacía entonces era transparente para ambos bandos. En la última etapa los EE.UU. y la URSS formaban un iceberg – si los EE.UU. representaban la cúspide que se elevaba por encima del agua, la parte de abajo era la URSS y viceversa. El sentido de esta metáfora es que todos los asuntos de los EE.UU. tenían una parte subacuática en forma del campo socialista, todos los asuntos de la URSS tenían una parte subacuática representada por los EE.UU. y el “mundo libre”. La CIA y el KGB eran como la cinta de Moebius, también hoy lo conservan, aunque en mucho menor medida, porque el KGB realmente era el protagonista de la guerra invisible, del “frente invisible”, a diferencia del FSB que no tiene semejante nivel. Ambos bandos tenía su red de agentes del mismo valor. Así que todo lo que hacía la CIA era transparente para el KGB y viceversa. Existía la línea telefónica directa – el “teléfono rojo”. Así que todas esas acusaciones son una tontería.

Nak – ¿Y si hablamos del intercambio de artículos de Putin y McCain, qué significado tiene?

GD – El significado de este pique es que Putin abiertamente cuestiona las pretensiones de los EE.UU. al estatus de la autoridad moral mundial, pero la polémica de Obama con Putin es inadmisible, porque Obama se apoya en Putin, quien le entrega el pase. En particular, con el asunto del ataque a Siria Putin le ha proporcionado a Obama la posibilidad de conservar la influencia política, autoridad, estatus y las perspectivas de los demócratas para las elecciones de 2014 al proporcionarle la excusa para no meterse en el conflicto sirio. Por eso Obama no puede mantener semejante polémica con Putin, máxime, cosa muy probable, que en el fondo de su alma está de acuerdo con Putin.

Nak – ¿Por qué lo piensa?

GD – Obama es demócrata-cosmopolita, que ha nacido no se sabe dónde y estudió en un colegio musulmán en Indonesia. Su padre real es un keniata musulmán, y su padrastro con el que vivió en sus años ya más conscientes es un musulmán indonesio. Es un hombre que ha vivido fuera de los Estados Unidos y no es tan idiota como McCain, quien representa el producto completo del sistema aislacionista estadounidense de conciencia y quien, por lo visto, descubrió el extranjero por primera vez al ser enviado al frente en Vietnam. Y dado que Obama no fue formado por la matriz estadounidense, por cierto, de las más precarias del planeta, creo que para sus adentros está plenamente de acuerdo con Putin. Al mismo tiempo, los EE.UU. no podían dejarlo sin respuesta, pero confiaron la respuesta a McCain, un payaso, quien representa el lado republicano del establishment político, pero que incluso en este lado no es tomado en serio. Es una figura odiosa. Es como Zhirinovsky, pero sin reflexión. Zhirinovsky hace el tonto conscientemente, a sabiendas, pero McCain lo hace totalmente en serio, convencido de que es el portavoz de la profunda verdad estadounidense, lo cual lo convierte en todavía más absurdo y cómico. Es decir que McCain es un payaso que no sabe que es un payaso.

Nak – ¿Y le encargan a él la respuesta?

GD – Le encargan la contestación que se convierte así en una payasada, desprovista de toda convicción, de toda fuerza, que deja paso a insultos personales. Putin les dice a los Estados Unidos, “no sois excepcionales, así que quedaros tranquilos, porque no tenéis autoridad moral para ser los árbitros del proceso mundial”. Y McCain le contesta: “y tú eres un cabrón, un tirano”. A lo mejor es un tirano ¿pero acaso es una respuesta? Cualquiera que hay leído la carta y la respuesta pensará “que la peste se lleve a vuestras dos casas”. En cualquier caso es una respuesta de payaso, porque Putin toca los temas fundamentales, hablando de los Estados Unidos en general – él no dice quién es Obama, qué es la constitución norteamericana, en qué cree o no cree Obama y su predecesor. Pero McCain como un clown contesta: “chavales, este tipo os gobierna mal, no cree en vosotros”. Vaya estupidez. Qué más da en lo que cree o no cree Putin. ¿Acaso la situación cambiaría, si apareciera, por ejemplo, Prójorov, quien cree de otra manera? La respuesta por sí misma es propia de un colegial de provincia, desprovisto del pensamiento sistémico y que simplemente se dedica a tirar de los pelos a las niñas durante el recreo o a meterse con alguno más débil del curso inferior. No es la respuesta de un hombre que esté conectado a algún significado, que domine aunque sea en el modelo estadounidense de pensamiento. Fue hecho a propósito. McCain, quien es un don nadie, que representa el bando republicano, hostil a Obama, es llamado a responder a un artículo fundamental que causó una gran conmoción en los Estados Unidos. Es una respuesta asimétrica, pero no a favor de los EE.UU. A lo mejor es una forma de pago a Putin de parte de los Estados Unidos y de Obama – una respuesta tan inadecuada.

Nak – ¿Con la situación creada es posible pronosticar cómo se va a desarrollar la situación en torno a Siria? El ataque fue suspendido, parece que se han puesto de acuerdo sobre las armas químicas ¿pero y después qué?

GD – Es bastante difícil pronosticar. Creo que Asad durará hasta las próximas elecciones. La suspensión del ataque como resultado aumenta poderosamente el peso y la importancia de Irán en Oriente Próximo. Irán se convierte realmente en la superpotencia regional que, siguiendo los canales diplomáticos secretos, es reconocida como tal por los Estados Unidos, que con Obama contribuyeron bastante a su paso al primer plano. En particular, las propias sanciones son un potente medio para fortalecer a Irán: reforzar su estabilidad política interior, solidaridad, preparación defensiva. Las experiencias adversas han demostrado a todo el mundo que Irán es autosuficiente e incluso si se le aísla y se le rodea con alambre de espino o con un muro según el modelo israelí, este muro no va a ayudar, porque en un territorio de 1 millón 600 mil kilómetros cuadrados los recursos agrícolas y demás de Irán son suficientes para mantener a flote a la población de cien millones de personas, aunque incluso no llegan a cien. A lo mejor no estarán prosperando y tendrán que apretarse el cinturón, pero no tendrán especiales problemas. En el mundo hay pocos centros que pueden ser autosuficientes.

Nak – ¿Quién más aparte de Irán?

GD – Los EE.UU. y Canadá podrían subsistir en aislamiento, Unión Europea podría sobrevivir, tiene la posibilidad de mantener a su población a flote. China ha alcanzado este nivel, es exportadora de la producción agrícola. China ha logrado tener la autosuficiencia agrícola y es su principal baza. Todo el siglo XX el imperialismo ha luchado para que ningún pueblo, salvo Occidente poseyera la autosuficiencia agrícola. Allá donde había países del tercer mundo exportadores de alimentos, les llevaban la ayuda humanitaria, gracias a sus presidentes colocados a traición que daban el visto bueno. La ayuda humanitaria, que se repartía allí gratis, acababa con la agricultura como ocurrió, por ejemplo, con Bangladesh. Al país llevaron el arroz en cantidades gigantescas que repartían gratis y así destruyeron a la agricultura. Y si no podían hacerlo de esta manera, entonces establecían tales impuestos para los granjeros, como ocurrió en Egipto con Mubárak, que éstos abandonaban el campo y se iban a subsistir a las ciudades, porque con aquellos impuestos era imposible trabajar – los precios de compra eran ridículos y los impuestos enormes.

Nak – ¿Se trata de una política programada de Occidente?

GD – Era una directriz del FMI. Incluso América Latina tiene problemas con la alimentación. A principios del siglo pasado Argentina era un poderoso país agrícola que suministraba carne al mundo entero. Después aquello fue destruido. Prácticamente todos los países se encuentran sumidos en el caos agrícola y dependen de unos pocos monopolios que controlan el producto agrícola mundial. Más concretamente el mercado del grano está controlado por 5 Compañías Transnacionales, que controlan el 85% del mercado mundial de trigo. Tan solo están China e Irán que pueden subsistir por su cuenta pese a todo, al igual que la Unión Europea, los EE.UU. y Canadá. Rusia se autoabastece tan solo en un 30%. Imagínese que mañana aíslan a Rusia, declaran sanciones contra ella la colocan bajo boicot. Ello significaría que el 70% de la población se iba a quedar sin alimentos. La gente tendría que abandonar las ciudades y lanzarse al campo para conseguir allí patatas, raíces, zanahorias o lo que sea. Se trata simplemente del colapso agrícola que siempre lleva a la destrucción de la vertical del poder etc., porque cuando no hay nada que comer comienza el caos. Por algún motivo nadie habla de ello. Todo el mundo habla del dinero, del petróleo, de la industria ligera y pesada, pero nadie dice que la seguridad alimentaria es el tema Nº1. Y en Irán está asegurada, por eso el desenlace de la situación en Siria lleva a que, tras unos años de pruebas muy duras Irán expulsará a Arabia Saudí, Turquía y Egipto del podio, sobre el que habían permanecido como los líderes de la región y países Nº1.

Nak – ¿O sea que en la región va a haber una seria transformación?

GD - Queda claro que Egipto ahora no está en ninguna parte ni en el sentido moral, ni político, ni económico. La autoridad de Arabia Saudí disminuye notablemente a raíz de cómo ha terminado el asunto con el ataque contra Siria. Se sabe que el ministro de seguridad de Arabia Saudí Bandar bin Sultán, estrechamente vinculado a la CIA y miembro del clan más influyente dentro de la dinastía saudita, quien hace poco estuvo visitando a Putin para convencerlo sobre Siria – está rabioso, histérico, al ver los resultados a los que ha llevado el espectáculo puesto en escena por Kerry y Lavrov, por Obama y Putin, con el esencial papel de intermediario desempeñado por Irán. Las campanas doblan por Arabia Saudí y su papel en la región. Irán se convierte en el país Nº1 y a continuación crece la inestabilidad alrededor de Irán y de sus fronteras porque hay en marcha la movilización de los sunitas radicales contra este país chiita. En realidad este es el esquema previsto desde el principio. Mientras tanto en el mundo la crisis prosigue su marcha, el mundo se desliza hacia la gran guerra con esta configuración. Ha sido asestado un golpe al FMI, ha sido asestado un golpe contra el predominio mundial del capital bancario especulativo en su conjunto. De momento está ganando Obama con su máquina impresora de dólares y la RPCh. con su 30% de las reservas mundiales de oro almacenadas. Lógicamente, el conflicto entre ellos también es inevitable, porque el dólar por un lado y el oro, por el otro, son como dos osos metidos en la misma guarida.

22/09/2013

(Traducido del ruso para por Arturo Marián Llanos)

Fuente: Nakanune.ru

samedi, 05 octobre 2013

L’Europe de l’Ouest aux mains de Poutine

L’Europe de l’Ouest aux mains de Poutine
par Valentin Vasilescu

Ex: http://www.avicennesy.wordpress.com

L’Europe occidentale a immédiatement à faire un choix crucial. Soit attaquer la Russie pour saisir et exploiter les ressources d’hydrocarbures dans l’Arctique, soit accepter la dépendance totale vis à vis du gaz russe, selon le modèle allemand.

Sur une carte des réserves pétrolières et gazières mondiales connues en 2000, nous voyons que l’économie de l’Europe occidentale (dans une moindre mesure la France, le Portugal, l’Espagne et l’Italie) tourne avec les hydrocarbures de la mer du Nord.

 

800px-USGS_world_oil_endowment

 

Sur une carte avec la délimitation des zones économiques exclusives, on observe que le pétrole et le gaz en mer du Nord appartiennent, en priorité, au Royaume-Uni et à la Norvège, en petite partie au Danemark et aux Pays-Bas et très peu à l’Allemagne. BP détient le monopole de l’exploitation en association avec les américains Amoco et Apache et avec la société d’état norvégienne Statoil​​.

 

North_sea_eez

 

Il est intéressant de noter que de 2007 à 2012, l’extraction de pétrole et de gaz aux Pays-Bas était 2,5 fois plus faible. Ce qui démontre que, après 50 ans d’exploitation sauvage du gisement les réserves pétrolières de la Mer du Nord seront complètement épuisées dans les deux prochaines années. Ceci va générer une crise énergétique qui entrainera l’effondrement de l’économie de l’UE. L’Allemagne a été la première à tenter de résoudre ce problème à l’avance en collaborant avec la Russie à la construction du gazoduc NorthStream.

 

nord-stream-map-2

 

La presse internationale a demandé au président russe Vladimir Poutine s’il avait des plans à long terme. Il a déclaré que pour lui la Russie n’est pas un projet, la Russie est un destin. Avec la découverte de l’énorme gisement  russe de Yuzhno- Karski , situé au nord de la mer de Barents, accumulant 75% des réserves de pétrole et de gaz de l’Arctique,  les États membres de l’OTAN de cette zone de Europe pourraient avoir la tentation de vouloir l’exploiter par la force , en violant le droit de propriété souveraine de la Russie, pensant que les Etats-Unis leur viendront en aide. Mais l’article 5 du Traité de l’Atlantique Nord, signé à Washington le 4 Avril 1949 se lit comme suit : " Les parties conviennent qu’en cas d’attaque armée contre l’un d’entre eux, chacun d’entre eux soutiendra la partie attaquée en décidant individuellement et /ou conjointement avec les autres parties, toute action qu’elle jugera nécessaire, y compris l’utilisation de la force armée ".

Donc en cas d’agression contre la zone arctique de la Russie, d’un pays de l’OTAN, les Etats-Unis n’interviendraient pas forcément, et s’ils le faisaient, ils subiraient la défaite la plus cuisante de leur histoire. Parce que les forces armées américaines reposent sur sa flotte capable de projeter la force militaire au plus près de l’adversaire. Or la zone arctique russe n’est pas la Yougoslavie, l’Irak, la Libye ou la Syrie et les porte-avions, les navires amphibies de débarquement du corps des Marines (porte-hélicoptères), les destroyers et les navires d’approvisionnement ne peuvent pas opérer dans l’océan gelé de la banquise. Et le rayon d’action de l’aviation embarquée sur les porte-avions déployés dans des bases de l’OTAN en Europe du Nord est insuffisant pour frapper la moindre cible dans l’Arctique russe. Malgré tout, la Russie est préparée à toute éventualité, avec dans la zone, un dispositif militaire terrestre, naval et aérien impressionnant.

http://romanian.ruvr.ru/2013_09_27/Planul-SUA-pentru-controlul-asupra-nordului-Europei-2308/

Traduction Avic

Par Valentin Vasilescu, pilote d’aviation, ancien commandant adjoint des forces militaires à l’Aéroport Otopeni, diplômé en sciences militaires à l’Académie des études militaires à Bucarest 1992.

vendredi, 04 octobre 2013

Kenya : futur point d’entrée de la Chine en Afrique pour supplanter le dollar ?

chkenya.jpg

Kenya : futur point d’entrée de la Chine en Afrique pour supplanter le dollar ?

Elisabeth Studer

Ex: http://www.leblogfinance.com

Simple coïncidence  ? Alors que le Kenya vient d’être le théâtre d’une attaque terroriste particulièrement meurtrière et que les dessous de l’affaire pourraient réserver quelques surprises, précisons que Nairobi est en train de remettre en cause la suprématie du dollar, en se tournant tout particulièrement vers le yuan chinois.


Le Kenya souhaiterait en effet prochainement héberger une chambre de compensation pour la devise de l’Empire du Milieu au sein de sa Banque centrale; ce qui, le cas échéant – serait une première sur le continent africain. Même si Pékin envahit pas à pas l’Afrique du Nord au sud.
Certes, un tel rapprochement ne devrait pas éclipser totalement la monnaie américaine, mais n’est pas vu d’un très bon oeil du côté de Washington, alors que même le gouvernement doit faire face une nouvelle fois à un mur budgétaire.


A l’heure actuelle, les opérations en monnaie chinoise sont peu répandues parmi les gestionnaires africains, les traders étant attachés dans tous les sens du terme à la flexibilité du billet vert.
Si les Africains peuvent d’ores et déjà obtenir des cotations de leurs devises par rapport au yuan, une chambre de compensation permettrait de mettre fin à l’obligation de règlements en dollars, réduisant parallèlement les coûts et accélérant les transactions.


Via une telle opération, le Kenya deviendrait symboliquement la passerelle entre le monde des affaires du continent africain avec la Chine, l’empereur économique de l’Asie, même si lés débuts demeurent modestes.


De tels types d’échanges seraient également les premiers réalisés en dehors du continent asiatique.
Mais la concurrence pourrait d’ores et déjà faire rage sur le continent africain, alors notamment que le Nigéria détient des réserves en yuan.


L’Afrique du Sud a par ailleurs été évoquée comme un hôte potentiel de la chambre de compensation, des officiels ayant toutefois affirmé qu’un tel plan n’était pas envisagé.
En août dernier, le ministre kenyan des Finances Henry Rotich laissait ainsi entendre que la proposition du gouvernement kenyan consistait avant tout de démontrer l’ampleur du marché financier du Kenya …. et de rendre le projet attractif … tout en favorisant la confiance des marchés et investisseurs.
Une situation désormais grandement remise en cause par l’attaque terroriste survenue il y a quelques jours à Westgate.

« Nous considérons comme très positif ce projet de chambre de compensation, et je pense qu’il est très important pour le Kenya de mettre en place un centre financier sur son territoire en vue de traiter la monnaie chinoise », indiquait quant à lui l’ambassadeur de Chine au Kenya, Liu Guangyuan, le mercredi 18 septembre à Nairobi, soit quelques heures avant l’assaut meurtrier du centre commercial.

C’est en août dernier, que la volonté de Nairobi avait été affichée au grand jour, le Président kenyan Uhuru Kenyatta ayant fait son offre au cours d’une visite à Pékin cet été.

Rappelons que la Chine s’est d’ores et déjà accordé avec le Japon en vue d’établir une convertibilité directe yen-yuan en transaction bilatérale.


Des études sont menées parallèlement au sein du groupe des BRICS en vue de revoir la suprématie du dollar et de l’euro sur le marché international.


Le Kenya pourrait devenir une des premières régions du monde à l’expérimenter. De quoi fâcher certains ….

Sources : Reuters, legriot.info

Elisabeth Studer – 28 septembre 2013 – www.leblogfinance.com

A lire également :

. Kenya : quand la découverte de pétrole provoquait espoir et inquiétude

mercredi, 02 octobre 2013

Quand les émergents disent non aux "guerres du Bien"...

bricsxxww.jpg

Quand les émergents disent non aux "guerres du Bien"...

Nous reproduisons ci-dessous un point de vue de Jean-Yves Ollivier, cueilli sur Atlantico et consacré à l'échec occidental dans l'affaire syrienne, qui est le signe d'un basculement géopolitique majeur...

Ex: http://metapoinfos.hautetfort.com

L'Occident mis en échec : quand les émergents disent non aux "guerres du Bien"

Les relations internationales se limitent-elles au combat manichéen entre le Bien et le Mal que les dirigeants occidentaux, sous la férule des Etats-Unis, vendent à l’opinion publique depuis la première guerre du Golfe ? A cette dynamique binaire, les puissances émergentes opposent systématiquement une vision géopolitique plus traditionnelle (et plus cohérente) axée autour de leurs intérêts stratégiques et de notions-clés telles que alliés/ennemis, grands équilibres, menaces,…

Mais, des interventions en Irak ou en Lybie, en passant par l’Afghanistan ou le Mali, les protestations des émergents étaient jusque-là restées bien vaines face aux visées bellicistes de l’Occident. Les menaces de veto régulièrement brandies (et parfois exercées) par la Chine ou la Russie au Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU ne faisaient que retarder les projets des guerres civilisatrices de l’axe américano-européen.

Comment comprendre dès lors l’impressionnant recul américain (et français) sur la question syrienne ? La défiance des opinions publiques nationales des deux pays est certes un élément de réponse, mais la fermeté de la diplomatie russe, associée au front commun anti-guerre des principales puissances émergentes (du Brésil à l’Inde en passant par la quasi-totalité du continent africain) est sans nul doute l’élément décisif qui a fait reculer Barack Obama.

Pourquoi les Etats-Unis ont-il pour la première fois plié sous la pression des émergents ? L’administration américaine est consciente que le monde a profondément changé et que l’ère de la super-puissance hégémonique US est terminée. Dans un monde multipolaire et globalisé, les Etats-Unis doivent composer avec des partenaires qui ne sont pas toujours des alliés… et accepter d’avaler quelques couleuvres.

L’Amérique omnipotente des Trente Glorieuses (tout comme l’Europe au demeurant) n’est plus qu’une vieille illusion. Avec un quart de sa dette souveraine détenue par la Chine et la grande majorité de ses outils de production délocalisés dans les pays émergents, les Etats-Unis ne disposent plus de beaucoup de leviers pour faire pression sur des pays avec lesquels ils sont intrinsèquement interdépendants.

Et encore, à la différence de l’Europe (même si la France et la Grande-Bretagne font encore illusion), l’Amérique peut se prévaloir de sa puissance militaire. Indispensable mais insuffisant quand on prétend incarner l’ordre moral au niveau planétaire.

La reculade du président Obama sur le dossier syrien démontre d’ailleurs que la suprématie militaire n’est plus suffisante face à des émergents qui prennent progressivement conscience de leur puissance. Et à regarder les courbes respectives de croissance en Occident et dans ces régions, il y a fort à parier que cette tendance ne fasse que s’accroître dans les années à venir.

Le déclin des uns (Etats-Unis et Europe) et la montée en puissance d’autres puissances (Chine, Russie,…) perçues comme non interventionnistes, servent en réalité les intérêts des dirigeants attaqués qui sortent renforcés de leurs bras de fer avec l’Occident. Avant l’exemple syrien, Américains et Européens avaient déjà fait de Mugabe, Chavez ou Ahmadinejad des héros de l’anti-impérialisme.

Mais pire encore, lorsque l’axe occidental intervient militairement… puis se retire aussitôt face à une opposition publique allergique à la guerre, ils abandonnent des pouvoirs fragiles qu’ils ont eux-mêmes "mis en place" ; réduisant à zéro leur légitimité et ouvrant la porte à des guerres civiles sans fin (Irak, Afghanistan, Lybie,…).

Jean-Yves Ollivier (Atlantico, 25 septembre 2013)

Du nouveau au Moyen-Orient

MOR_000.jpg

Du nouveau au Moyen-Orient

Jean Paul Baquiast

Ex: http://www.europesolidaire.eu

La résolution de l'ONU votée vendredi 27 septembre réduit à néant tout l'argumentaire de la politique dite occidentale (Etats-Unis, France et Grande Bretagne, Israël) à l'encontre du gouvernement de la Syrie.

Non seulement elle remet au premier plan le rôle incontestablement stabilisateur de la Russie, mais elle représente une “re-légitimation” de Bachar Al Assad, puisque celui-ci est nécessairement impliqué comme président de la Syrie dans une résolution portant sur l'armement chimique qu'il contrôle. Son existence légitime est actée pour toutes les opérations concernant cet armement chimique, y compris la présence de ses représentants à Genève-II qui devrait suivre. Pour les pays qui, il y a quelques temps encore, ne pouvaient concevoir une démarche officielle sur la Syrie qu'après la liquidation d'Assad, il s'agit d'une véritable gifle. Elle marque heureusement un retour à la raison, y compris au sein de ces pays. Même si Assad n'a rien d'un « dictateur doux », lui et les intérêts tribaux qu'il représente (y compris ceux des chrétiens d'Orient) sont autrement préférables à ce qui menace encore la Syrie, c'est-à-dire l'établissement d'un califat islamique à Damas, voire au Liban et à Amman.

L'espèce de déroute diplomatique occidentale se trouve renforcée par le début de rapprochement entre l'Iran et les Etats-Unis. Là encore ce rapprochement, s'il se concrétisait, serait au bénéfice des nécessaires relations avec un axe chiite représenté en ce moment par Téhéran, avec lequel l'Occident ne saurait sans risques accepter d'être en état de guerre larvée. Les grands alliés sunnites « officiels » des Etats-Unis et de l'Europe s'en indigneront: Arabie Saoudite, Qatar. Ils y verront à juste titre une perte d'influence sur les politiques « occidentales ». Mais qui en Europe ne s'en réjouirait, à part ceux qui seraient prêts à se vendre au diable pour récupérer des participations financières à leurs opérations suspectes. Le rôle de ces deux pays dans le soutien au djihad tant en Europe qu'au Moyen-Orient devrait être une raison suffisante pour cesser de s'inféoder à eux.

Le résultat le plus évident de ces virages diplomatique est l'isolement d'Israël, ou plus exactement de Benjamin Netanyahou, qui s'était imprudemment impliqué contre Assad et contre l'Iran depuis plusieurs mois. Sa position diplomatique et politique devient très précaire. On peut se demander, connaissant la prudence proverbiale des organes de sécurité nationale israéliens, pourquoi Israël s'était engagé officiellement dans ce maximalisme interventionniste. Ceux pour qui la présence d'Israël au Moyen-Orient reste une condition indispensable à l'équilibre du monde peuvent espérer que l'Etat juif est en train de reconsidérer sa position afin de s'adapter à un environnement changé. La connaissance de cette évolution discrète pourrait peut être expliquer la soudaine mansuétude manifestée par le chef de la diplomatie française à l'égard d'un accord possible entre Washington, Damas et...Téhéran.


Jean Paul Baquiast

lundi, 30 septembre 2013

Brzezinski, el cerebro geopolítico de Obama

por Germán Gorráiz*

Ex: http://paginatransversal.wordpress.com

Wright Mills en su libro “The Power Elite” (1.956), indica que la clave para entender la inquietud norteamericana se encontraría en la sobre-organización de su sociedad. Así, establishment sería “el grupo élite formado por la unión de las sub-élites política, militar, económica, universitaria y mass media de EEUU”, lobbys de presión que estarían interconectadas mediante “una alianza inquieta basada en su comunidad de intereses y dirigidas por la metafísica militar”, concepto que se apoya en una definición militar de la realidad y que habría transformado la economía en una guerra económica permanente.

Por su parte, Brzezinski en un artículo publicado en la revista Foreign Affaire (1970), expone su visión del “Nuevo Orden Mundial” al afirmar que “se hace necesaria una visión nueva y más audaz(la creación de una comunidad de países desarrollados que puedan tratar de manera eficaz los amplios problemas de la humanidad”, esbozos de una teoría que perfilará en su libro “Entre dos edades: El papel de Estados Unidos en la era tecnotrónica”(1.971), donde explica que ha llegado la era de reequilibrar el poder mundial, poder que debe pasar a manos de un nuevo orden político global basado en un vínculo económico trilateral entre Japón, Europa y Estados Unidos.

En el citado libro “Between two Ages,”(19.71), aboga además por el control de la población por una élite mediante la “manipulación cibernética” al afirmar : “la era tecnotrónica involucra la aparición gradual de una sociedad más controlada y dominada por una élite sin las restricciones de los valores tradicionales, por lo que pronto será posible asegurar la vigilancia casi continua sobre cada ciudadano y mantener al día los expedientes completos que contienen incluso la información más personal sobre el ciudadano, archivos que estarán sujetos a la recuperación instantánea de las autoridades”, lo que anunciaría ya la posterior implementación del programa PRISM.

Asimismo, en un discurso reciente durante una reunión del Council on Foreings Relations (CFR), el ex asesor de Carter advirtió que “la dominación estadounidense ya no era posible debido a una aceleración del cambio social impulsado por la comunicación instantánea que han provocado el despertar universal de la conciencia política de las masas (Global Political Awakening) y que está resultando perjudicial para la dominación externa como la que prevaleció en la época del colonialismo y el imperialismo”, por lo que tras el fallido intento de controlar la nube (Programa PRISM), en los próximos años asistiremos al final de la democratización de la información , con la imposibilidad del acceso directo a la red siguiendo los pasos de las políticas restrictivas implementadas por países como China, Rusia o Irán.

El 11-S y la deriva totalitaria de EEUU:

Según el Financial Times, Brzezinski en una audiencia ante la Comisión de Relaciones Exteriores del Senado en el 2007, explicó que: «Un escenario posible para un enfrentamiento militar con Irán implica un acto terrorista en suelo americano del cual se haría responsable a Irán. Esto pudiera culminar con una acción militar americana “defensiva” contra Irán en el que estarían incluidos Irán, Irak, Afganistán y Pakistán”, de lo que se deduce la posibilidad de un nuevo atentado en EEUU que sería falsamente atribuido a Irán para provocar su invasión y una posterior deriva totalitaria de EUU, similar a la registrada con George W. Bush tras el 11-S del 2001. Así, un mes después del atentado del 11-S, el gobierno de George W. Bush decidió secretamente anular una de las principales protecciones constitucionales de este país (habeas corpus) mediante la ley conocida como USA- Patriot Act bajo la justificación de su “lucha contra el “terrorismo” según documentos oficiales revelados a finales de 2005 en una serie de reportajes en el New York Times.

Asimismo, el citado diario informó de la existencia de la red de espionaje electrónica más sofisticada del mundo, (el llamado programa PRISM o Big Brother) , herramienta para monitorizar las comunicaciones de ciudadanos no estadounidenses a través de sus metadatos, (verdadero monstruo virtual que habría extendido sus tentáculos hasta los servidores de compañías como Google, Apple, Micros Eloft, AOL, Facebook y Yahoo), programas ambos aprobados por el Congreso de EEUU a instancias de la Administración Bush en el 2.007 pero que por inercia apática continuaron bajo el mandato de Obama.

Como colofón a esta deriva totalitaria de EEUU, estaría la firma con objeciones por Obama de la Ley de Autorización de Defensa Nacional (NDAA), que permite a las autoridades militares la detención indiscriminada de ciudadanos estadounidenses en cualquier parte del mundo (sin especificar los cargos que se le imputan ni el tiempo de detención), reservándose Obama la interpretación personal de la sección 1.021 de dicha Ley para según sus palabras ”asegurarse que cualquier detención autorizada se llevará a cabo conforme a la Constitución y a las leyes de guerra”.

Europa:

Según explicaba Brzezinski en la revista National Interest en el año 2.000, “los europeos estarán más inmediatamente expuestos al riesgo en caso de que un imperialismo chauvinista anime nuevamente la política exterior rusa”, con lo que esbozó un plan que pasaría por la expansión de la OTAN hasta límites insospechados en la década de los 90 y la implementación del nuevo sistema europeo de defensa anti-misiles,( European Phased Adaptative Approach (EPAA). Dicho sistema en realidad se trata de un escudo anti-misil global en el que los misiles interceptores emplazados en plataformas móviles pueden abatir blancos en un espacio común (a base de datos transmitidos por todos los radares y sistemas de reconocimiento opto-electrónico) , con el fin maquiavélico de tras un primer ataque sorpresa de EEUU que destruiría el potencial nuclear ruso en su propio territorio, neutralizar posteriormente la réplica rusa por medio de los misiles estacionados en Polonia.

En un principio, Rusia y la OTAN acordaron cooperar en la creación del escudo anti-misiles para Europa en noviembre de 2010 en la Cumbre Bilateral de Lisboa, pues para Moscú era vital que la OTAN ofreciera garantías reales de que ese sistema no apuntaría a Rusia y disponer de un documento jurídicamente vinculante al respecto, pero la Administración Obama siguiendo la inercia mimética de la Administración Bush de ningunear a Rusia,ha rehusado hasta el momento ofrecer dichas garantías por escrito. Dado el actual contexto de guerra fría EEUU-Rusia, es previsible que EEUU decida finalmente completar cuarta fase del despliegue del escudo antimisiles en Europa (Euro DAM), lo que tendría como réplica por parte rusa la instalación en Kaliningrado del nuevo misil balístico inter-continental de 100 Tm, (“el asesino del escudo antimisiles de EEUU” en palabras del viceprimer ministro ruso Dmitri Rogozin) así como la reactivación de la carrera armamentista entre las dos grandes potencias, no siendo descartable la reedición de la Crisis de los Misiles (Cuba, 1.962).

Doctrina del “choque de civilizaciones”:

En 1978, Zbigniew Brzezinski, declaró en un discurso:”Un arco de crisis se extiende a lo largo de las costas del Océano Índico, con frágiles estructuras sociales y políticas en una región de importancia vital para nosotros que amenaza con fragmentarse y Turquía e Irán, los dos estados más poderosos del flanco Sur son potencialmente vulnerables a los conflictos étnicos internos y si se desestabilizara uno de los dos, los problemas de la región se harían incontrolables“ , esbozo de una teoría que terminó de dibujar en su libro “El gran tablero mundial. La supremacía estadounidense y sus imperativos geoestratégicos” (1.997), considerada la Biblia geoestratégica de la Casa Blanca así como el libro de cabecera de las sucesivas generaciones de geoestrategas y politólogos.

Sin embargo, en una entrevista a Brzezinski realizada por Gerald Posner en The Daily Beast (18 de septiembre de 2009) afirmó que “una colisión estadounidense-iraní” tendría efectos desastrosos para Estados Unidos y China, mientras Rusia emergería como el gran triunfador, pues el previsible cierre del Estrecho de Ormuz en el Golfo Pérsico donde atraviesa el transporte de petróleo destinado al noreste asiático (China, Japón y Sur-Corea), Europa y Estados Unidos, elevaría el precio del oro negro a niveles estratosféricos y tendría severas repercusiones en la economía global , pasando a ser la UE totalmente crudodependentiente de Rusia”, por lo que la administración Obama procedió a la implantación de sanciones económicas al régimen iraní para lograr su asfixia económica y provocar la revuelta social.

Recordar que Irán adquirió una dimensión de potencia regional gracias a la política errática de Estados Unidos en Iraq, (fruto de la miopía política de la Administración Busch obsesionada con el Eje del Mal ) al eliminar a sus rivales ideológicos, los radicales talibanes suníes y a Sadam Husein con el subsiguiente vacío de poder en la zona,por lo que ha reafirmado su derecho inalienable a la nuclearización.

Tras la elección de Hasan Rowhani como nuevo Presidente iraní, se abriría una nueva oportunidad para la solución diplomática al llamado contencioso nuclear iraní. Así, Rowhani (clérigo educado en Gran Bretaña), encabezó el equipo de negociación nuclear iraní de 2003 a 2005 y es conocido por su pragmatismo nuclear que en esa época llevó al acuerdo de Irán a una suspensión total de actividades nucleares conflictivas, por lo que en el supuesto de lograrse la resolución del contencioso nuclear de EEUU-Irán y el restablecimiento de relaciones diplomáticas entre ambos países , Rowhani conseguiría su objetivo de que se reconozca el papel de Irán como potencia regional, logrando de paso el incremento de cooperación irano-estadounidense relativa a la seguridad en Iraq y Afganistán y la resolución del avispero sirio-libaní.

Sin embargo, caso de fracasar la vía diplomática de Obama, aumentaría la presión del lobby pro-israelí de EEUU ( AIPAC), para proceder a la desestabilización de Irán por métodos expeditivos, momento que será utilizado por EEUU, Gran Bretaña e Israel para proceder a rediseñar la cartografía del puzzle inconexo formado por dichos países y así lograr unas fronteras estratégicamente ventajosas para Israel, siguiendo el plan orquestado hace 60 años de forma conjunta por los gobiernos de Gran Bretaña, Estados Unidos e Israel y que contaría con el respaldo de los principales aliados occidentales.

Respecto a China,

el objetivo de Brzezinski es la confrontación con la Organización de Cooperación de Shanghai (OCS), fundada en 2001 por los Cinco de Shanghai (China, Rusia, Kazajistán, Kirgistán, Tajikistán) más Uzbekistán y convertida junto con los países del ALBA e Irán en el núcleo duro de la resistencia a la hegemonía mundial de Estados Unidos y Gran Bretaña, teniendo al Tibet y a Xinjiang como escenarios para sus operaciones desestabilizadoras.

Recordar que la etnia uigur de Xinjiang ( de origen turco-mongol y con un total de 8.5 millones de habitantes), conserva características étnicas e islámicas que les situarían muy próxima a sus parientes de Asia central y Turquía, por lo que sería el caldo de cultivo ideal para implementar la estrategia brzezinskiniana del “choque de civilizaciones”, consistente en lograr la balcanización de China y su confrontación con el Islam (cerca de 1.500 millones de seguidores) así como secar sus fuentes de petróleo de los países islámicos del Asia Central.

Así, según F. William Engdahl, en el artículo titulado “La agenda oculta tras la violencia en Xinjiang” y reproducido por China Daily en el 2009 varios de los más importantes gasoductos de China pasan por Xinjiang en procedencia de Kazajstán, Turkmenistán, Uzbekistán y Rusia, lo que explicaría la importancia estratégica de dicha provincia dentro de la estrategia brzezinskiniana de lograr la total rusodependencia energética china para en una fase posterior acabar enfrentándolas entre sí y finalmente someterlas e implementar el nuevo orden mundial bajo la égida anglo-judío-estadounidense.

Doctrina del “caos constructivo” y la crisis siria:

La Doctrina Carter inspirada por Brzezinski (1980), tenía como objetivo la implementación en Oriente Próximo y Medio del llamado “caos constructivo”, concepto que se basaría en la máxima atribuida al emperador romano Julio César “divide et impera”, para lograr la instauración de un campo de inestabilidad y violencia en la zona (balcanización) y originar un caos que se extendería desde Líbano, Palestina y Siria a Iraq y desde Irán y Afganistán hasta Pakistán y Anatolia (Asia Menor).

Dicha proceso de balcanización de la zona estaría ya en marcha y tendría su plasmación en países como Irak , devenido en Estado fallido y desangrado por la reavivación de la guerra civil chií-suní; en la endémica división palestina plasmada en la imposible reconciliación nacional de las facciones de Hamás y la OLP; en la anarquía reinante en Libia con el wahhabísmo salafista instaurado en Trípoli mientras grupos takfiríes (satélites de Al-Qaeda), dominan tribalmente el interior de Libia y en la aplicación de la yihad suní contra el régimen laico de Al Assad y sus aliados chiíes, Irán y Hezbolá que por efecto mimético habría convertido ya al Líbano en un país dividido y presto para ser fagocitado por Israel, quedando el régimen teocrático chíita del Líder Supremo Ayatolah Jamenei como única zona todavía impermeable a la estrategia balcanizadora de Brzezinski.

Sin embargo, Brzezinski en una reciente entrevista publicada en The National Interest, advirtió sobre las nefastas consecuencias de implicarse militarmente en el conflicto sirio, al afirmar que “tengo miedo de que nos dirigimos hacia una intervención estadounidense ineficaz, pues la intervención militar podría acelerar la victoria de los grupos rebeldes que son mucho más hostiles para nosotros que Assad , pues la actual crisis en Siria sería una guerra colonial orquestada por Arabia Saudita, Qatar, Turquía y sus aliados occidentales Francia y Gran Bretaña”.

Así, el acuerdo de cooperación energética del 2010 entre Irak, Irán y Siria para la construcción del gasoducto de South Pars a Homms que conectaría el Golfo Pérsico con el Mar Mediterráneo, relativizaría la importancia estratégica de Turquía dentro del Proyecto del Gasoducto Trans-Adriático (TAP) así como el papel relevante de las monarquías árabes del Golfo como suministradores de crudo a Occidente, lo que explicaría el afán de Qatar, Arabia Saudí y Turquía por defenestrar a Al-Asad.

Finalmente, la jugada maestra de Putin convenciendo a Assad para que entregue todo su arsenal de armas químicas y el escaso apoyo internacional recibido por Obama para iniciar su operación militar contra Siria, podría conducir a la celebración de la anhelada Conferencia Internacional Ginebra II sobre Siria (rememorando la Guerra de Laos y los Acuerdos de Ginebra de 1.954), con lo que la crisis siria se limitará a una puesta en escena en la que los actores participantes usarán el escenario sirio como banco de pruebas para un posterior conflicto a gran escala que englobará a Israel y Egipto y que podría reeditar la Guerra de los Seis Días en el horizonte del próximo quinquenio.

Respecto a América Latina:

En el discurso de Obama ante el pleno de la VI Cumbre de las Américas celebrado en Cartagena (Colombia) en el 2012, recordó que la Carta Democrática Interamericana declara “que los pueblos de América Latina tienen derecho a la democracia y sus gobiernos tienen la obligación de promoverla y defenderla, por lo que intervendremos cuando sean negados los derechos universales o cuando la independencia de la justicia o la prensa esté amenazada”, advertencia extrapolable a Ecuador y Venezuela.Por su parte, la revista Foreign Policy, ( edición de enero-febrero, 2012), publicó un análisis de Brzezinski titulado “After America” (”Después de América”), donde analiza la tesis de la decadencia de los EEUU debido a la irrupción en la escena global de nuevos actores geopolíticos (China y Rusia) y de sus posibles efectos colaterales en las relaciones internacionales.

Respecto a México, afirma que ”el empeoramiento de las relaciones entre una América (EEUU) en declinación y un México con problemas internos podría alcanzar niveles de escenarios amenazantes”. Así, debido al “caos constructivo” exportado por EEUU y plasmado en la guerra contra los cárteles del narco iniciada en el 2.006, México sería un Estado fallido del que sería paradigma la ciudad de Juárez, (la ciudad más insegura del mundo con una cifra de muertes violentas superior al total de Afganistán en el 2009), por lo que para evitar el previsible auge de movimientos revolucionarios antiestadounidenses se procederá a la intensificación de la inestabilidad interna de México hasta completar su total balcanización y sumisión a los dictados de EEUU.

Por otra parte, EEU utilizará la Alianza del Pacífico (2011), refinado proyecto de ingeniería geoeconómica promovida por Estados Unidos y secundado por México, Colombia, Chile, Perú y Costa Rica, como caballo de Troya para dinamitar el proyecto integracionista representado por la UNASUR e intensificar la política de aislamiento de los gobiernos progresista-populista de la región, (Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Uruguay y Bolivia).

Así, EEUU podría estrechar lazos comerciales y militares con el presidente dominicano Danilo Medina ante el peligro de contagio mimético de los ideales revolucionarios chavistas al depender el país dominicano de la venezolana Petrocaribe para su abastecimiento energético.

Dicha estrategia fagocitadora tendría como objetivos a medio plazo aglutinar el Arco del Pacífico para integrar además a Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua y Panamá e incorporar por último al Mercosur (Brasil, Argentina, Paraguay y Uruguay) , siguiendo la teoría kentiana del “palo y la zanahoria “ expuesta por Sherman Kent en su libro “Inteligencia Estratégica para la Política Mundial Norteamericana” (1949).

En cuanto a Venezuela, tras las reñidas elecciones presidenciales en Venezuela en las que Maduro se habría impuesto a Capriles por el estrecho margen de 200.000 votos, asistiríamos a una división casi simétrica de la sociedad venezolana que será aprovechado por EEUU para implantar “el caos constructivo de Brzezinski” mediante una sistemática e intensa campaña desestabilizadora que incluirá el desabastecimiento selectivos de artículos de primera necesidad, la amplificación en los medios de la creciente inseguridad ciudadana y de la legitimidad democrática de Maduro, estrategia que contando con la inestimable ayuda logística de Colombia (convertida en el portaaviones continental de EEUU) podría llegar a desestabilizar el régimen post-chavista para asegurarse el suministro del petróleo venezolano (Venezuela aportaría el 21,6% de un total del 38% de productos de la OPEP importados por EEUU).

Además, a pesar de que según datos publicados por la Administración de Información de Energía de EEUU (AIE), gracias a la técnica del fracking utilizada en la extracción de gas de esquisto (shale gas) y de petróleo ligero (shale oil), EEUU estaría ya rozando el umbral del auto-abastecimiento energético (cifra récord del 87 % en mayo del 2013) y de que se habría convertido ya en el principal exportador mundial de combustibles refinados (gasolina y diésel ), para ser competitivo en los mercados el precio final del producto debería moverse en la horquilla de los 75-85 $, tarea que se antoja harto difícil en la tesitura actual.

Así, el actual rally alcista del precio del crudo (rondando los 115 $) hará que los fletes sean prohibitivos y situará a Venezuela en una clara posición de ventaja geoestratégica por razones de cercanía geográfica respecto de EEUU (la navegación de los buques petroleros de Venezuela a EEEUU dura 5 días frente a los 14 días necesarios para llegar a Europa y los 45 días hasta el Lejano Oriente).

En cuanto a Cuba, las medidas cosméticas tomadas por la Administración Obama (relajación de las comunicaciones y el aumento del envío de remesas a la isla así como el inicio de una ronda de conversaciones sobre temas de inmigración), dejan intacto al bloqueo y no cambian sustancialmente la política de Washington aunque reflejan el consenso de amplios sectores del pueblo norteamericano a favor de un cambio de política hacia la Isla auspiciado por la decisión del régimen cubano de terminar con el paternalismo estatal y permitir la libre iniciativa y el trabajo por cuenta propia.

Sin embargo, la renovación automática por parte de EEUU por un año más del embargo comercial a la isla podría suponer para Cuba pérdidas estimadas en cerca de 50.000 millones de $ y abocar al régimen de Raúl Castro a la asfixia económica , no siendo descartable la firma de un nuevo tratado de colaboración militar con Rusia.

En cuanto a Brasil, forma parte de los llamados países BRICS (Brasil, Rusia, India, China y Sudáfrica) y aunque se descarta que dichos países forman una alianza política como la UE o la Asociación de Naciones del Sureste Asiático (ASEAN), dichos países tienen el potencial de formar un bloque económico con un estatus mayor que del actual G-8 (se estima que en el horizonte del 2050 tendrán más del 40% de la población mundial y un PIB combinado de 34.951 Billones de $).

El objetivo ruso sería duplicar la facturación de los intercambios comerciales ruso-brasileños tras lo que subyacería la firme decisión de Putin de neutralizar la expansión de EEUU en el cono sur americano y evitar la posible asunción por Brasil del papel de “gendarme de los neoliberales” en Sudamérica. Así, Brasil juega un rol fundamental en el nuevo tablero geopolítico diseñado por EEUU para América Latina pues le considera como un potencial aliado en la escena global al que podría apoyar para su ingreso en el Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU como miembro permanente con el consiguiente aumento del peso específico de Brasil en la Geopolítica Mundial.

*Analista.

jeudi, 26 septembre 2013

The U.S. vs. Brazil: From Espionage to Destabilization

Obama-and-Rousseff.jpg

The U.S. vs. Brazil: From Espionage to Destabilization

Nil NIKANDROV

Ex: http://www.strategic-culture.org

 

 The espionage scandal which broke out after NSA employee Edward Snowden's disclosures and which has strained relations between Brazil and the United States is gaining momentum.  More and more new details are coming to light about routine electronic spying  by U.S. intelligence on Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff and those surrounding her, including relatives and the leadership of the foreign ministry, the ministry of defense, and intelligence agencies. Rousseff was especially indignant that the NSA and CIA tapped all her telephones in the presidential office and in her residence.  The fact that the NSA illegally infiltrated the computer databases of the Brazilian oil company Petrobras and monitored the business and personal correspondence of its personnel round the clock also came to light.
 
In order to make a well-considered decision on the espionage scandal, Rousseff sent Minister of External Relations Luiz Alberto Figueiredo to the U.S., where he held a series of meetings with Obama administration officials, including U.S. National Security Advisor Susan Rice.  This problem had been discussed previously when Rousseff met with Obama personally in St. Petersburg at the G20 forum. The U.S. president promised to see into the matter and give Brazil a thorough explanation. However, Figueiredo returned from Washington empty-handed. The Americans once again turned to their favorite scheme: stalling, procrastinating, and promising to explain everything in a day or two. Obama used the same tactics when he called Dilma Rousseff to persuade her not to cancel her state visit, again confining himself to indistinct promises. The just demands of the Brazilian president not to delay the explanation and to deliver them in written form are being ignored by the White House… Obama does not want to leave behind compromising evidence which his opponents in Congress and journalists could interpret as "weakness" in regulating a conflict with a "third world" country.

Attempts by the Obama administration to get the Brazilians to agree to discuss the conflict behind closed doors through diplomatic or other channels, as has been done many times with other countries, did not meet with success. The situation was further intensified by the approach of the date of Dilma Rousseff's visit to Washington – October 23.  The Brazilian leadership held its line to the end: Rousseff announced the cancellation of her visit to Washington and explained the reasons for this step herself.

Brazil is prepared for an uncompromising public explanation of all the circumstances related to the espionage conducted by the United States. The first results of this conflict have already appeared; after U.S. Ambassador Thomas Shannon was called twice to the Brazilian Ministry of External Affairs to provide an explanation, the State Department hastened his departure from the country. Brazil is very displeased with the fact that explanations from its North American partners remain unspecific, superficial and, in essence, mocking. The empty promises of Obama, Kerry and other high-ranking officials in the U.S. administration to "look into the matter" and "normalize" the activities of the intelligence agencies had the opposite effect this time. Dilma Rousseff quite decisively demonstrated to Washington that she is capable of standing up for the interests of her country, especially in such an area as state security…

Among the actions under consideration by the Brazilian authorities with regard to U.S. intelligence operating on the territory of Brazil is a tightening of control over identified American intelligence personnel with the aim of documenting illegal aspects of their activities and subsequently deporting them from Brazil. The Brazilian authorities are increasingly concerned about signals that the CIA, U.S. military intelligence, and DEA operatives are involved in the creation of "youth protest groups" which have already been used and could be used in the future to intensify the crisis situation in the country.

The problem of U.S. electronic espionage was discussed at the first meeting of Mercosur leaders and experts on the problem of maintaining computer and telecommunications security. Representatives of Brazil, Venezuela, Bolivia, Argentina and Uruguay suggested urgent measures for stopping "the Empire's espionage and strengthening the technological independence and sovereignty of the bloc's participant countries." Venezuelan Foreign Minister Elias Jaua supported Brazil in all items on the agenda. A decision to create a workgroup for developing a unified strategy for counteracting "imperialist interference" and "U.S. spy operations which cause damage to governments, enterprises and citizens" was approved. A meeting of the ministers of defense of Brazil and Argentina was held at which the ministers signed an agreement on the creation of a bilateral group with the aim of "attaining an optimal level of development of cyberprotection and minimizing vulnerability to cyberattacks".

In an interview with the Argentinian newspaper Pagina 12, Brazilian Minister of Defense Celso Amorim told about the increasing operative capabilities of the Center for Cybernetic Protection. The minister only touched on the topic of the electronic spying on President Rousseff and her entourage in passing, but he particularly emphasized that all the facts at their disposal indicate the necessity of developing Brazil's defensive capabilities.  Celso Amorim spoke with frankness unusual for the head of a military agency of the medium-term plans for strengthening Brazil’s armed forces. These included the construction of a nuclear submarine for patrolling in territorial waters and protecting oil fields on the shelf, the development of the aerospace industry, and starting production of the KC-390 heavy cargo aircraft, which in the future could replace the U.S.-made Hercules in the Brazilian air force.

According to data from independent sources, the scandal around the total espionage of U.S. intelligence in Brazil could result in the Brazil’s refusal to close a deal for the purchase of 36 F-18 Hornet fighter planes. "We cannot," say Brazilian analysts, "sign such large-scale contracts with a country we do not trust".

Brazil intends to follow the example of Russia and China in creating its own Internet system, which to a significant degree will guarantee the security of its users and hinder the illegal connection of NSA "specialists". Among Brazil's plans is the laying of its own communications cables to Europe and Africa. The existing communications channels, which pass through U.S. territory, are totally monitored by the NSA.

A delegation of Brazilian parliament members is preparing a trip to Russia to meet with Edward Snowden and obtain additional information on the true scale of U.S. electronic espionage in Brazil, including the use of spy satellites. A modernized audio interception base, which was not closed down in 2002, as the media assured everyone, is functioning at full capacity at the U.S. embassy. It is now obvious to the Brazilian leadership that the argument used by the U.S. administration about the war on terrorism is only a cover for conducting operations of another kind altogether. In the Western hemisphere, this is the infiltration of databases and computer networks of Latin American countries, first of all those which are trying to conduct independent policy and focusing on integration through Unasur, ALBA, Petrocaribe, etc.

It is believed that the acquisition of advance information about the trips, routes, and places of residence of Latin American leaders "unfriendly" to Washington - Nestor Kirchner, Inacio Lula da Silva, Hugo Chavez and others - helped in conducting special operations against them, some of which, as is well known, were fatal.

This year the celebration of Independence Day on September 7 in the Brazilian capital, as well as in Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paolo and Porto Alegre, were accompanied by well-organized mass disturbances. The instigators pronounced anti-government slogans and shouted accusations against Dilma Rousseff, calling her a "traitor to national interests". Several dozen people were injured, and over 300 protesters were detained. The police are investigating the hidden relations between the detainees and "non-profit organizations" funded from the U.S. Some Brazilian bloggers have interpreted these disturbances as U.S. intelligence's "warning shot" at Dilma Rousseff.

U.S. intelligence personnel in Brazil may have to operate in much more complex conditions in the foreseeable future. The Brazilian intelligence agency (Abin) is now trying to rehabilitate itself in the eyes of the president and the public. The leaders of Abin, who were unable to detect a leak of strategically important information to the U.S. in time, causing huge political and material losses for the country, have received new instructions on the parameters for further collaboration with partners from the U.S. As they say, one good turn deserves another.
 

mercredi, 25 septembre 2013

On the True Aims of the War against Syria

Syria.jpg

On the True Aims of the War against Syria

Valentin KATASONOV
Strategic-Culture.org

 

Each expert has his own assessment of Washington's maneuvers around Syria and his own understanding of the aims of these maneuvers. There are as many understandings of the war being waged against Syria as there are experts writing on the topic of the Syrian crisis.For example:

1) providing the United States with energy resources;

2) creating controlled chaos in order to control the Middle Eastern region;

3) protecting the interests of the closest ally of the U.S., Israel;

4) using Syria as a "trigger" in order to stir up the flame of regional war which will then grow into a world war;

5) boosting the falling ratings of the American president;

6) giving Washington more effective control over China and European countries, which are dependent on supplies of energy resources from the Middle East.

7) occupying Syria in order to move on to the destruction of a more important U.S. foe, Iran;

8) ensuring contracts for the American defense industry and making the "arms barons" rich;

9) stimulating the stagnant American economy through military spending;

10) distracting Americans from unemployment, poverty and U.S. foreign policy failures, justifying the actions of intelligence agencies in monitoring the population of the U.S., etc.

 In trying to clarify the true aims of Washington's escalation of tensions around Syria when there are so many different expert opinions, one must not take the words of Barack Obama seriously. We will presume that the president has no understanding of the overall plan with regard to Syria. Nor do the Pentagon or American battlefield generals... At recent hearings in the U.S. Congress, four-star general Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, answered Senator Bob Corker's question on what he was seeking to achieve during a Syrian campaign with soldierly forthrightness and honesty: "I can’t answer that, what we’re seeking."

"Peace and Safety" through War

In my opinion, three main interconnected aims can be identified among Washington's hierarchy of aims in the "Syrian project":

a) to pave the aggressor’s way to the borders of Russia;

b) to create the conditions for starting World War III;

c) to preserve the petrodollar currency system.

Much has already been said about the fact that Syria is merely an intermediate link in Washington's aggressive plans. After Syria, the next target of aggression is to be Iran. And after Iran, the aggressor will end up right on the southern borders of Russia.

And now for the second strategic aim. Note that I say not to start World War III, but to create the conditions for starting it. The nuance is that the United States doesn't need World War III at the moment. However, it could be needed in the near future. What for? However unexpected it may sound, the answer to this question lies in the mystical realm; there is no purely rational answer. The heart of the matter is that the masters of the Federal Reserve system, who dictate their will to America, have an inflamed sense of religion: they consider themselves to be forerunners of the Mashiach (Messiah), and expect that when he comes into the world, the Mashiach will ascend to the throne in the Temple of Jerusalem, which is yet to be rebuilt.  A regional war in the Middle East is needed by the masters of the Federal Reserve precisely because, in their minds, it will make it possible to rebuild the Third Temple in Jerusalem. A regional war started in one of the most explosive parts of the planet could easily grow into a world war, spreading chaos throughout the world. This will be the kind of chaos which will force all nations, upon seeing it, to pray that "peace and safety" would be established in the world. That is when the "last days" will come, and the majority of people will joyfully welcome the coming of the Mashiach (in the Christian worldview, the antichrist), who will reveal himself as the guarantor of "peace and safety".

War as a Way to Nullify Debts

Incidentally, there is a simplified explanation for why Washington might need World War III. This is the "financial" theory, which is adapted to the atheistic consciousness of the ruling elite of the West. Such a war is meant to nullify the astronomical debts run up by the U.S. and the West, as well as the banks of Wall Street and London City, which are in debt to all of humanity. The sovereign debt of the U.S. has already exceeded 100% of the GDP, and the country's external debt has also topped 100% of the GDP. Europe has been suffering from a serious debt crisis for several years, and no end is in sight. The sovereign debt of the Eurozone countries is inexorably approaching 100% of the GDP. The situation with external debt is even more critical. In Great Britain, for example, the external debt has approached the level of 500% of the GDP. Such indebtedness makes Europe an unwilling ally of Washington in its military ventures. The war, as the usurious bankers explain to the politicians, should "write off" all these debts. Otherwise, it will be the end not only of the banks, but of many states in the "golden billion".

The mechanisms for "writing off" debts are varied. Some debtors may vanish from the map altogether as a result of the war. There's a well-known saying among usurers: "If there's no debtor, there's no debt". To others they may explain that their debt claims against America are annulled in order to cover Washington's expenses for "defending democracy" on a global scale. Yet others may be turned from debt holders to debtors by imposing indemnities and reparations on them as enemies or abettors of the enemies of "world democracy". Basically, Uncle Sam should come out of the war debt-free. That is what his closest allies are counting on as well, especially Great Britain. And then Washington dreams of entering the "river of history" once more as the victor in the latest world war, with all the advantages that entails.  However, the scenario of world war will only be launched if it is no longer possible to maintain the debt pyramid in America. For now the U.S. military and banking system, straining with all its might, is trying to maintain and expand it.

Washington Needs the Petrodollar, not Petroleum

And now for the third strategic goal - preserving the petrodollar system. It is well known that forty years ago the gold standard was replaced by the oil standard. In 1971 the U.S. announced the end of the convertibility of the dollar to gold. Two years later, in order to support world demand for the U.S. dollar, which was no longer backed by anything, a new system was created: the petrodollar. In 1973 an agreement was reached between Saudi Arabia and the U.S. according to which each barrel of oil bought from Saudi Arabia would be priced in U.S. dollars. In accordance with this new agreement, any country wishing to buy oil from Saudi Arabia must first exchange its own national currency for American dollars. In exchange for Saudi Arabia's willingness to conduct oil deals exclusively in U.S. dollars, America offered it arms and protection of oil fields from the encroachment of neighboring countries, including Israel.In 1975 all the OPEC countries agreed to price their oil resources exclusively in American dollars and receive dollars for oil. In exchange they were promised arms shipments and military protection.

The petrodollar system which took shape forty years ago is doubly profitable to Washington. First, Federal Reserve banks receive income from each dollar issued (it is, after all, credit money, which creates debts). Thus banks rake in fabulous profits; a few crumbs fall to the American "rabble" as well. Second, all transactions in dollars are conducted through U.S. banks; consequently, Washington has an effective mechanism for controlling its vassals which are part of the world petrodollar system.  

Sometimes people say that in the Middle East America is fighting for sources of uninterrupted oil supplies for its economy. With regard to the events of 2013 surrounding Syria this theory is simply incorrect, although it was still justifiable at the time of the American invasion of Iraq. In his memoirs, published in 2007, former head of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan writes: "I am saddened (!) that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." That same year the current U.S. Secretary of Defense, then-Senator Chuck Hagel, admitted: "People say we’re not fighting for oil. Of course we are."

Over the past several years America has been solving its energy problems fairly effectively through the so-called "shale revolution". Its dependence on external sources is getting lower every year. America is no longer trying to create regimes under its control in the Arab world whose task is to provide an uninterrupted supply of oil and gas to the U.S. Today imports of oil from North Africa and the Middle East make up only 10% of total oil consumption in the U.S., and over the next few years that figure could fall to zero. Washington is fighting for trade in these resources to be conducted in U.S. dollars. The masters of the Federal Reserve system have a direct interest in this. Now, for example, China is establishing increasingly close relations with Iran, in spite of sanctions. What irritates Washington (or rather, the masters of the Fed) most of all is that trade between the two countries is conducted not in U.S. dollars, but on the basis of barter, clearing, and national currency units. No one voluntarily wants to trade energy resources for dollars anymore. Now it can only be done under the pressure of force - primarily on producers and exporters.

The Fight for the Petrodollar is Escalating

Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran – these are the links in Washington's fight to preserve the petrodollar. Let us recall some almost forgotten facts. In early 2011, Syrian President Bashar al-Asad announced the beginning of collaboration with Russia and China, in accordance with which all oil transactions were to be conducted in rubles and yuans. In March 2011 anti-government disturbances aimed at overthrowing the existing regime began, and on November 15 an embargo on the export of Syrian oil came into force.On June 1, 2012 an embargo came into force on the export of Iranian oil, which Tehran had begun selling for euros and rials, focusing on the internal exchange.

The situation was becoming increasingly tense for the masters of the Fed. In early 2013 the share of the dollar in international transactions fell below the psychologically important 50% mark. This was a serious signal to the masters of the Fed. Other countries may also end up on Washington's "execution list". These are countries which trade using: a) barter; b) clearing; c) gold; d) national currency units. For example, India and China buy oil from Iran for gold. Washington is unable to force India and China to abandon this kind of trade, but it hopes to get the better of Iran. It is also very unpleasant for Washington that Moscow is becoming increasingly confident in using the ruble for trade with neighboring countries. Russia is more and more frequently making contracts with China in rubles and yuans. Beijing is transitioning to transactions in yuans even with Western European countries. Is that not a reason for Washington to consider Russia and China its serious adversaries? So Uncle Sam is trying to make its way to the borders of Russia via Syria and Iran not only for geopolitical reasons, but for purely financial reasons as well. Everyone who undermines the petrodollar standard must be punished!

And only when Washington's fight to preserve the petrodollar system becomes hopeless will it implement "plan B", also called "World War III". And the detonator for this war is in the Middle Eastern region, more specifically, in Syria and Iran.




Republishing is welcomed with reference to Strategic Culture Foundation on-line journal www.strategic-culture.org.

mardi, 24 septembre 2013

Shanghai Cooperation Organisation warns against US-led war on Syria

sco.jpg

Shanghai Cooperation Organisation warns against US-led war on Syria

By John Chan
Ex: http://www.wsws.org/

The latest summit of the Russian- and Chinese-led Central Asian grouping, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), held in Bishkek, the capital of Kyrgyzstan, on September 13, was dominated by the rising global tensions produced by the US preparations for war against Syria.

Russian President Vladimir Putin insisted that “military interference from outside the country without a UN Security Council sanction is inadmissible.” The summit’s joint declaration opposed “Western intervention in Syria, as well as the loosening of the internal and regional stability in the Middle East.” The SCO called for an international “reconciliation” conference to permit negotiations between the Syrian government and opposition forces.

As he had done at the recent G20 summit in St Petersburg, Chinese President Xi Jinping lined up with Russia against any military assault on Damascus, fearing that it would be a prelude to attack Iran, one of China’s major oil suppliers.

Significantly, Iran’s new President Hassan Rouhani attended the meeting, despite suggestions that his government would mark a shift from former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his anti-American rhetoric at previous SCO summits. Rouhani welcomed Russia’s proposal to put Syria’s chemical weapons under international control, claiming that it has “given us hope that we will be able to avoid a new war in the region.”

The SCO explicitly supported Iran’s right to develop its nuclear program. Putin insisted in an address that “Iran, the same as any other state, has the right to peaceful use of atomic energy, including [uranium] enrichment operations.” The SCO declaration warned, without naming the US and its allies, that “the threat of military force and unilateral sanctions against the independent state of [Iran] are unacceptable.” A confrontation against Iran would bring “untold damage” to the region and the world at large.

The SCO statement also criticised Washington’s building of anti-ballistic missile defence systems in Eastern Europe and Asia, aimed at undermining the nuclear strike capacity of China and Russia. “You cannot provide for your own security at the expense of others,” the statement declared.

Despite such critical language, neither Putin nor Xi want to openly confront Washington and its European allies. Prior to the SCO summit, there was speculation that Putin would deliver advanced S-300 surface-to-air missile systems to Iran and build a second nuclear reactor for the country. Russian officials eventually denied the reports.

Russia and China are facing growing pressure from US imperialism, including the threat that it will use its military might to dominate the key energy reserves in the Middle East and Central Asia. The SCO was established in 2001, shortly before the US utilised the “war on terror” to invade Afghanistan. Although the SCO’s official aim is to counter “three evils”—separatism, extremism and terrorism in the region—it is above all a bid to ensure that Eurasia does not fall completely into Washington’s orbit.

Apart from the four former Soviet Central Asian republics—Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan—the group also includes, as observer states, Mongolia, Iran, India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. The “dialogue partners” are Belarus, Sri Lanka and, significantly, Turkey, a NATO member, which was added last year.

However, US influence is clearly being brought to bear on the grouping. Before the summit, there were reports in the Pakistani press that the country could be accepted as a full SCO member. Russia invited new Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to attend. However, Sharif only sent his national security advisor Sartaj Aziz, and no Pakistan membership was granted.

While the SCO is looking to enhance its role in Pakistan’s neighbour, Afghanistan, after the scheduled withdrawal of NATO forces, Aziz said Pakistan’s policy was “no interference and no favorites.” He insisted that the US-backed regime in Kabul could achieve an “Afghan-led reconciliation” if all countries in the region resisted the temptation to “fill the power vacuum.”

China and Russia are also deeply concerned by the US “pivot to Asia” to militarily threaten China and to lesser extent, Russia’s Far East, by strengthening Washington’s military capacities and alliances with countries such as Japan and South Korea. In June, China and Russia held a major joint naval exercise in the Sea of Japan, and in August, they carried out joint land/air drills in Russia involving tanks, heavy artillery and warplanes.

Facing US threats to its interests in the Middle East and the Asia-Pacific, China is escalating its efforts to acquire energy supplies in Central Asia. For President Xi, the SCO summit was the last stop in a 10-day trip to Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan—where he signed or inaugurated multi-billion-dollar deals for oil and gas projects.

At his first stop, Turkmenistan, Xi inaugurated a gas-processing facility at a massive new field on the border with Afghanistan. Beijing has lent Turkmenistan $US8 billion for the project, which will triple gas supplies to China by the end of this decade. The country is already China’s largest supplier of gas, thanks to a 1,800-kilometer pipeline across Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan to China.

In Kazakhstan, where Xi signed a deal to buy to a minority stake in an offshore oilfield for $5 billion, he called for the development of a new “silk road economic belt.” Trade between China and the five Central Asian republics has increased nearly 100-fold since 1992, and Kazakhstan is now the third largest destination of Chinese overseas investment.

Xi delivered a speech declaring that Beijing would never interfere in the domestic affairs of the Central Asian states, never seek a dominant role in the region and never try to “nurture a sphere of influence.” This message clearly sought to also placate concerns in Russia over China’s growing clout in the former Soviet republics.

During the G20 summit, the China National Petroleum Corporation signed a “basic conditions” agreement with Russia’s Gazprom to prepare a deal, expected to be inked next year, for Gazprom to supply at least 38 billion cubic metres of gas per year to China via a pipeline by 2018.

With so much at stake, Wang Haiyun of Shanghai University declared in the Global Times that “maintaining regime security has become the utmost concern for SCO Central Asian members, including even Russia.” He accused the US and other Western powers of inciting “democratic turmoil” and “colour revolutions” and warned that if any SCO member “became a pro-Western state, it will have an impact on the very existence of the SCO.” If necessary, China had to show “decisiveness and responsibility” to join Russia and other members to contain the turmoil, i.e. to militarily crush any “colour revolution” in the region.

The discussions at the SCO meeting are a clear indication that Russia and China regard the US war plans against Syria and Iran as part of a wider design to undermine their security, underscoring the danger that the reckless US drive to intervene against Syria will provoke a far wider conflagration.

Copyright © 1998-2013 World Socialist Web Site - All rights reserved

dimanche, 22 septembre 2013

Montesquieu et les considérations sur la Pax Americana au Moyen-Orient

Montesquieu et les considérations sur la Pax Americana au Moyen-Orient

Essai philosophique de Jure Georges Vujic

Ex: http://www.polemia.com

Le modèle belliciste américain expansionniste montre plus d’une fois son visage avec l’annonce de l’intervention militaire de l’administration Obama en Syrie. Il semblerait à première vue que les Etats-Unis n’aient tiré aucune leçon de l’expérience irakienne ou libyenne. En fait, il n’en est rien : il s’agit bien, hier comme aujourd’hui, d’un géo-constructivisme agressif qui est à l’œuvre et dont l’objet est d’appliquer par la force aux peuples du Moyen-Orient et du Maghreb la recette du « chaos constructif » qui consiste à exporter le modèle occidental de la démocratie de marché, en déconstruisant et reconstruisant les régimes et les Etats de la région comme de simples  jouets Lego.

 


Montesquieu_1.pngUne stratégie à l’américaine

Il s’agit bien d’une entreprise belliqueuse (certes, aventureuse) néo-impériale et atlantiste qui compte bien sur la dissémination des micro-bellicismes à l’échelon local, en instrumentalisant des dispositifs identitaires construits artificiellement. A cet effet, l’induction de conflits locaux inter-ethniques, religieux en Afghanistan et dans le monde arabe (chiites contre sunnites), n’est que le fruit de cette stratégie de faible intensité qui tend à entretenir et générer des foyers de tension pour mieux diviser et régner. A propos de cette stratégie, les Considérations inspirées de celles de Montesquieu sur les causes de la grandeur des Romains et de leur décadence, écrites en 1734, sont instructives. Elles sont toujours d’actualité et notamment lorsqu’elles se transposent à la Pax Americana, notamment dans le chapitre sur « L’art de la conduite que les Romains tinrent pour soumettre tous les peuples ». On y lit : « Ils tenaient à terre ceux qu’ils trouvaient abattus », « ôtaient une partie du domaine du peuple vaincu pour le donner à leurs alliés », se servaient de ceux-ci pour faire la guerre à leurs ennemis, « ce en quoi ils faisaient deux choses ; ils attachaient à Rome des rois dont elle avait peu à craindre et beaucoup à espérer et en affaiblissaient d’autres dont elle n’avait rien à espérer et tout à craindre ». Après avoir détruit des armées, ils ruinaient les finances en faisant payer les frais de guerre, ce qui forçait les dirigeants de ces pays « d’opprimer leurs peuples et de perdre leur amour ». Les vaincus pouvaient se voir décerner des récompenses éclatantes, notamment le titre convoité « d’allié du peuple romain » : amis, ils n’en étaient que le plus souvent humiliés.

Comment ne pas songer à la paix versaillaise accablante et honteuse que les Etas-Unis et leurs alliés ont imposée en 1919 à l’Allemagne, avec des réparations de guerre que le peuple allemand devait payer jusqu’en 1988 ? Puis encore comment ne pas transposer cette stratégie d’assujettissement des peuples à la situation des pays du Tiers-Monde, du Maghreb au Pakistan,  sans parler des sanctions infligées aux « Etats-parias » ou « voyous » ?

Comme au temps de la colonisation espagnole du continent américain contre laquelle s’était levé Bartolome de Las Casas qui prendra la défense des indigènes colonisés (voir la « Controverse de Valladolid », fameux débat au cours duquel il s’illustra), le monde actuel, et plus particulièrement l’Europe, est dominé par le système de « encomienda ». Ce système colonial consistait à donner « en commande » à un conquérant une parcelle de territoire, ainsi que les indigènes qui y habitaient, avec pour but de faire fructifier le pays, lever l’impôt et christianiser les indigènes. Comme hier dans le « Nouveau Monde », nous vivons presque dans une « encomienda » globale, une terre d’Europe en friche exploitée par l’oligarchie financialiste globale.

Aujourd’hui, le colon a rangé sa soutane de jésuite pour propager aux quatre coins du monde parmi les indigènes la nouvelle foi dans le monothéisme du marché, des bienfaits matériels de la société de consommation, de la culture coca-cola, de la musique techno et rap et en l’adhésion inconditionnelle aux sacro-saints dogmes de la démocratie de marché et en l’idéologie des droits de l’Homme. Comme hier lorsque les tuniques bleues pacifiaient les Indiens en les abreuvant de whisky, aujourd’hui nos indigènes européens sont amadoués par les drogues douces de la société de consommation, les sédatifs hédonistiques de la cité de la joie permanente. Bernanos avait raison, la grande tragédie de notre siècle de néocolonisation globale réside dans la duperie généralisée.

 En effet, la fin de l’ordre bipolaire, avec l’effondrement de l’URSS, permettait aux Etats-Unis, comme puissance dominante du moment, d’en revenir à la politique de la canonnière. La mise en œuvre d’une telle politique est le produit d’un approfondissement des réflexions stratégiques entreprises depuis 1984 sur les opérations de dissuasion sélective. Ces opérations, après avoir planché sur les conflits de faible intensité, étudièrent les moyens à mettre en œuvre pour faire face à des conflits de moyenne intensité, qui mettaient en scène des puissances régionales disposant d’un important armement conventionnel comme la Syrie et l’Irak.

Dans les pays les plus faibles on utilise la stratégie du « coupe-feu » qui consiste à monnayer, au prix d’une libéralisation du marché, le bouclier protecteur d’Oncle Sam et le titre d’allié. Là où le pays est plus récalcitrant et « entêté », on met en œuvre le concept de conflit de moyenne intensité qui implique la mise au point de nouvelles techniques d’intervention prévoyant le transport sur de longues distances, et dans les délais les plus brefs possibles, des troupes nombreuses et un matériel conventionnel important capables de faire la différence face à des ennemis disposant d’une puissance de feu non négligeable.

Bref, pour soumettre l’ennemi, on utilise tout d’abord la dissuasion, le « pressing diplomatique », euphémisme pour un chantage économico-financier, où sous prétexte de pacification on intervient militairement et médiatiquement comme ultime recours. Ainsi, Grenade, l’Afghanistan, la Guerre du Golfe, la Bosnie Herzégovine, le Kosovo, l’Irak, la Libye ne sont que des théâtres où les Etats-Unis ont été en mesure de tester la pertinence de leurs schémas théoriques stratégiques et la fiabilité de leur logistique et de leur armement. Là où il n’y avait pas de conflit dans une zone géostratégique convoitée par Oncle Sam, on induisait artificiellement et volontairement des conflits de faible ou de moyenne intensité pour prétexter une intervention hypothétique.

Les Etats-Unis sont passés maîtres en l’art de générer le « chaos  constructif » et minuté.

La lecture de Montesquieu

Mais poursuivons la lecture de Montesquieu. L’utilisation des peuples voisins étaient en général la tactique adoptée. « Quand deux peuples étaient en guerre, quoiqu’ils n’eussent aucune alliance ni rien à démêler entre l’un et l’autre, ils ne laissaient pas de paraître sur la scène et de prendre le parti du plus faible. C’est l’illustration de la politique d’alliance des Etats-Unis vis-à-vis des conflits régionaux de type Ossétie, Bosnie, Arménie, etc. Ils s’appuyaient toujours sur des alliés à proximité du peuple qu’ils désiraient vaincre, alliés qu’ils avaient créés de toutes pièces. « Ils n’accordaient point de paix à un ennemi qui ne contînt une alliance, c’est-à-dire qu’ils ne soumettaient point de peuple qu’il ne leur servît à en abaisser d’autres ». Les peuples soumis ou à soumettre mettaient tous leurs espoirs dans un tel traité. Pour Rome, la paix n’était qu’une manière de préparer la guerre et les traités n’étaient que des suspensions dans la guerre. Les peuples vaincus, soumis ou à se soumettre, n’étaient jamais épargnés même dans l’humiliation : après chaque victoire Rome suscitait deux factions, s’immisçait dans les affaires intérieures, utilisait les opposants qualifiés « d’alliés du peuple romain » et divisait afin d’affaiblir. De l’Honduras, du Salvador au Nicaragua, en passant par le Chili, toute la politique étrangère et militaire des Etats-Unis est ici expliquée en quelques mots.

Néanmoins, Montesquieu constate que Rome « avait une manière lente de conquérir », « car il fallait attendre que toutes les nations fussent accoutumées à obéir comme libres ou comme alliés avant de leur commander comme sujettes ». C’est ce qui distingue la mission civilisatrice universelle qu’entreprenaient les légions romaines dans les quatre coins du monde dans le respect des religions et de la diversité des peuples sujets, et l’unipolarité hégémoniste des Etats-Unis d’aujourd’hui qui ne propose aucune vision du monde (ou du moins américano-centrée) ni de véritable projet de société : elle ne fait que broyer impitoyablement, tel un rouleau compresseur, les peuples qui refusent de se soumettre aux diktats de l’argent roi, du libéralisme mercantile, de la loi du marché et de la société multiculturelle. La stratégie utilisée est celle que préconise Brzezinski : une stratégie totale qui vise, par le biais de la fragmentation et de la déstabilisation (théorie du « chaos constructeur »), à coloniser des Etats « voyous » et à contrôler les zones riches en ressources, sans rien donner en contrepartie.

Il n’existe plus de dialogue loyal autour du thème de la globalisation entre les pays riches et les pays pauvres. Il n’existe qu’un monologue américain à travers ses diverses courroies de transmission, qui devra consolider sa suprématie par l’intermédiaire de la « dépersonnalisation » des peuples et des nations et « l’interpersonnalisation » desdites ploutocraties et des trusts dominants qui sont les rouages de la globalisation.

La « zoologisation » 

La globalisation, par le jeu d’une uniformisation du génotype, aboutit à un racisme contemporain à nouveau visage en générant une « zoologisation » du monde dans laquelle on assiste à un nouveau partage social darwiniste des espèces. Le globalisme à ce titre, comme l’a si bien remarqué Peter Sloterdjik, constitue le champ expérimental « de nouvelles règles pour un parc humain ». En ce sens cette nouvelle forme de déterminisme globaliste n’a rien à envier aux théories racistes ou socio-racistes de Gobineau, Spencer, Glumpowitz, Galton, Malthus, Hobbes et Mendel. Le globalisme est une « tumeur » pathogène de la civilisation de la Renaissance, qui dans le sillage de l’anthropomorphisme et de la technoscience a fini par broyer les peuples et les identités pour le seul intérêt de l’oligarchie mondiale de Paris, Londres et Wall-Street. En l’espèce il est difficile alors d’être un esprit libre, alors que, comme Sénèque l’a dénoncé, « l’opinion conformiste de seconde classe d’essence scientifique a le monopole de la vérité ».

L’ambivalence de cette mentalité scientiste dominante est la conséquence de la dissociation de la philosophie de la sciensa (sens) et sa domestication à des fins économiques et mercantiles. Le globalisme n’est qu’un symptôme d’une accélération générale de la dynamique capitaliste, qui (comme le démontre Paul Virilio) par excès de vitesse démultiplie les conflits inter-ethniques et géo-économiques. Gilles Deleuze avait noté cette évolution : « Le capitalisme statique », la vieille taupe a muté vers un capitalisme financier et fluide, incarné par le serpent des sociétés de contrôle. Victor Hugo constatait déjà en son temps qu’au nom de la pseudo-démocratie globalisante, « peu de progrès a été effectué alors que l’exercice de cette utopie coûte de plus en plus cher ». Dostoïevski proclamait que la chance trouve ses sources dans la souffrance : le globalisme trouvera-t-il un second salut dans le génocide des peuples et des cultures ? Peut-être trouvera-t-on la réponse à cette question en relisant les thèses de Schumpeter sur les capacités transformatrices du capitalisme (la fameuse « destruction créatrice » qui, transposée à la géopolitique américaine, s’identifie au « chaos constructif ») et les leçons d’Etienne de La Boétie données dans son Discours de la servitude volontaire.

Jure Georges Vujic,
Avocat au Barreau de Paris, diplômé de la Haute école de guerre des forces armées croates,

collaborateur de l’Académie de Géopolitique de Paris et contributeur à la revue  Géostratégiques et au site Polémia.com

Notes :

-Montesquieu, Considérations sur les causes de la grandeur des Romains et de leur décadence, Michael Prudhomme, 2007.

-Zbigniew Brzezinski, « Puissance américaine et stabilité mondiale », Fondation pour la Recherche Stratégique (FRS), Puissances et Influences, géopolitique et géostratégie à l’aube de l’an 2000, sous la direction de François Géré et Gérard Chaliand, Mille et Une Nuits, 1999.

-Paul Virilio, Vitesse et Politique, essai de dromologie, Galilée, 1997.-Paul Virilio, Stratégie de la déception, Galilée, 2000.

Correspondance Polémia – 17/09/2013

vendredi, 20 septembre 2013

La guerre en Syrie: une guerre pour l’Energie?

aleppo.jpg

La guerre en Syrie: une guerre pour l’Energie?

 

Alors que la guerre en Syrie continue, le Mainstream médiatique, qui s’acharne sur l’Etat syrien, oublie de façon récurrente de rappeler l’un des aspects les plus essentiels de ce conflit: l’aspect énergétique et notamment Gazier. Cet aspect explique principalement le soutien actif de la Russie à non pas la personnalité de Bashar El-Assad mais avant tout à l’effondrement du régime Syrien car cet effondrement voulu de l’extérieur serait un élément géopolitique d’un dispositif bien plus large et assez directement dirigé contre elle.

Lorsque la Russie commence à relever la tète à compter des années 2000, elle devient en effet le principal obstacle au plan de prise de contrôle énergétique des voies énergétiques liant l’Europe et l’Eurasie via les Balkans que les stratèges américains ont programmé et entamé via notamment la guerre en Serbie en 1999.

L'Amérique et l'Union Européenne vont alors chercher par tous les moyens à diversifier l’approvisionnement des pays européens pour réduire leur potentielle dépendance envers Moscou. C’est le début du projet de gazoduc Nabucco, aujourd’hui quasiment abandonné, qui consistait à permettre l'alimentation de l'Europe en gaz produit en Azerbaïdjan et au Turkménistan, via un itinéraire qui aurait traversé la Turquie et évité la Russie tout en contournant la Grèce. Autour de ce projet, il y avait un  plan géopolitique américain très ambitieux: Transformer l'allié Turc en pivot central d’un grand moyen orient à remodeler et aussi en un centre régional de transit énergétique entre les Balkans et le moyen orient.

On comprend dès lors mieux les velléités américaines pour que la Turquie intègre l’Union Européenne et aussi garder ce pays dans leur giron, ce qui leur permettrait de contrôler indirectement mais fermement l’approvisionnement énergétique de l’Europe et surtout d’empêcher une alliance continentale énergétique euro-russe jugée contraire aux intérêts américains en Eurasie.

Ce projet Nabucco a cependant échoué puisque le Turkménistan s'est tourné vers la Chine et que l'Azerbaïdjan s'est lui rapproché du projet russe South Stream. Développé en 2007, South Stream, a pour objectif de permettre à la Russie de garder le contrôle sur l’approvisionnement de l’Europe via notamment la caspienne et le Kazakhstan (membre de l’Union Douanière), tout en y incorporant la Serbie dont l'importance énergétique pour l'Union européenne sera, dans l’avenir, aussi grande que celle de l'Ukraine aujourd’hui. Une Ukraine définitivement contournée pour que ne se reproduise plus les incidents de 2006 et les coupures d’approvisionnement en Europe.

Après la faillite de la Grèce suite à la crise financière, la Russie s’était engagée sur la voie du rachat du consortium gazier grec par Gazprom. Ces négociations se sont arrêtées lorsque le département d'Etat américain a tout simplement mis en garde Athènes contre une coopération énergétique avec Moscou et déconseillé une cession à Gazprom qui "permettrait à Moscou de renforcer sa domination sur le marché énergétique de la région". South Stream prévoit malgré tout un embranchement vers la Grèce, achevant de transformer le projet en une sorte de pont énergétique orthodoxe en direction de l’Europe.

La position d’Ankara est à ce jour assez ambiguë. Fortement liée à la Russie sur le domaine énergétique via par Blue Stream, Ankara a également accepté qu’un raccord soit opéré entre Blue Stream et South Stream. En outre le pays, seconde puissance de l’Otan, s’est également déclaré candidat à rejoindre l’Organisation de Shanghai (l’alliance militaire sous direction Sino-russe), avec laquelle le pays a signé en début d’année 2013 un partenariat de dialogue préalable à l’adhésion. Est-ce le signe d’un profond et crucial retournement d’alliance?

La Syrie, aux prises avec une guerre civile et interconfessionnelle qui oppose chiites et sunnites, est elle directement concernée par deux projets de gazoducs liés aux projets Nabucco et South Stream mentionnés plus haut.

En 2009, un projet appelé "Friendship Pipeline" a été lancé par l'Iran, l'Irak et la Syrie, trois pays à gouvernance musulmane chiite. Le tube amènerait du gaz iranien à la méditerranée, en vue d'alimenter l'Europe, mais en évitant le territoire turc. Ce projet, destiné à permettre à l’Iran d’écouler son stock en Europe, comprend également une extension vers le Liban et selon Roland Lombardi devrait être à terme raccordé au projet russe South Stream. Il faut rappeler que l’Iran était initialement pressenti comme fournisseur essentiel de Nabucco mais sera rapidement exclu du projet pour des raisons politiques et aussi sans doute après que le renversement du régime soit apparu comme de plus en plus improbable, tant par la force que par des procédés moins violents comme l’embryon de révolution de couleur qui a frappé le pays en 2009

En 2009 aussi, un autre projet a été lancé, un projet de pays sunnites et qui aurait reçu l'aval du Pentagone. Du gaz qatari serait livré en Europe, par un gazoduc qui partirait du Qatar, traverserait l'Arabie Saoudite puis la Syrie et enfin la Turquie. Au passage ce projet ressusciterait le projet Nabucco, soutenu par les turcs et les américains, mais abandonné pour l’instant faute de fournisseurs de gaz fiables. Bien entendu, ce projet du Qatar est irréalisable si le régime de Bashar el-Assad n'est pas anéanti et remplacé par un gouvernement docile. On comprend mieux ce qui peut pousser un certain nombre de pays à s'engager activement dans le soutien de l'opposition syrienne.

On voit que le point focal de cette concurrence entre les producteurs de gaz est l'Union Européenne, cet énorme marché solvable dont la consommation de gaz ne devrait qu'augmenter malgré la crise.

Plus que jamais, les choses se passeront en Méditerranée car de nouveaux acteurs vont bientôt apparaitre sur le marché. Israël et Chypre ont découvert de très grandes réserves de gaz off shore dans leurs zones économiques exclusives, ces deux pays deviendront à moyen terme des pays exportateurs importants. Dans ce bassin de la méditerranée orientale, il est probable que les découvertes de gaz off shore ne font que commencer. Le Liban et la Syrie pourraient aussi disposer de réserves exploitables de gaz.

Pour l'exportation de ces nouvelles ressources deux solutions qui mélangent commerce et géopolitique s'affrontent déjà. Les USA sont partisans d'un réseau de gazoducs qui alimenteraient l'Europe en traversant la Turquie et les pressions sur Israël ont déjà commencé. Les russes, pour leur part, préfèreraient que ce gaz soit liquéfié et exporté par méthaniers vers l'Asie industrielle.

Le grand jeu énergétique semble s'accélérer, opposant plusieurs projets énergético-civilisationnels qui traduisent clairement les ambitions politiques et stratégiques de blocs politiques entre lesquels la guerre énergétique est visiblement en train de s’intensifier.

L’opinion exprimée dans cet article ne coïncide pas forcément avec la position de la rédaction, l'auteur étant extérieur à RIA Novosti.

Alexandre Latsa est un journaliste français qui vit en Russie et anime le site DISSONANCE, destiné à donner un "autre regard sur la Russie".

The Genesis of the Syrian Crisis and the Perpetual War of the U.S.

soldier-and-flag.jpg

The Genesis of the Syrian Crisis and the Perpetual War of the U.S.

Elena PONOMAREVA

Ex: http://www.strategic-culture.org

 
During the Great Depression era, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the 32nd president of the U.S. and one of the most eminent statesmen of the first half of the 20th century, stated, "One of my main goals is to keep bankers and businessmen from committing suicide." This touching concern turned into an enormous tragedy for all mankind: World War II, which was stirred up mainly by American industrialists and financiers. Over 54 million people were killed in that war, 90 million were wounded, and 28 million of those wounded were disabled. 

The Second World War resolved many of the problems of the American establishment, but not all of them: The Soviet Union not only survived, but turned into a superpower. But Roosevelt's main goal was achieved and then some; the U.S. became a world financial center. In July 1944 in the small town of Bretton Woods, at an international conference of the victors, such institutions as the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD, after 1960 - the World Bank) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) were founded. At that time the U.S. dollar was declared a world currency, as good as gold. At that moment the U.S. controlled 70% of the world gold reserves. Within the U.S. were 129 billion dollars of liquid savings (a colossal amount even by current standards!).

This money, "earned" by American bankers and industrialists on the suffering and deaths of millions of people, was a powerful stimulus for the production of consumer goods and capital construction, to say nothing of the international status the U.S. acquired. Even Z. Brzezinski, a Russophobe and an ideological enemy of our country, has admitted, "Paradoxically, while the defeat of Nazi Germany elevated America's global status, American had not played a decisive role in the military defeat of Hitlerism. Credit in that regard has to go to the Stalinist Soviet Union". In any case, it was after the last world war that the foundation for the modern hegemony of America was laid.

For those who in fact rule America, the great and terrible war shaped their one and only model of behavior: resolution of one's own problems should always be achieved at the expense of other countries and peoples. Throughout the entire post-war period the U.S. has resorted to aggression each time it has encountered economic problems or it was necessary to direct attention away from unpopular economic measures inside the country.

For example, the Korean War was a reaction to the first post-war economic recession of 1949. The invasion of Lebanon came as a consequence of the recession of 1957-1958. Aggression against Vietnam was a reaction to the economic decline of 1967, and Carter's "launch" of a second wave of the cold war was a reaction to a slump in 1979. The slump of 1981-1982 called into being not only Reagan's "military Keynesianism", but also the American "approach" to Nicaragua and Grenada. To say nothing of such large-scale U.S./NATO interventions in the 21st century as Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.

Many American scholars and writers have also noticed the aggressive nature of U.S. foreign policy as a reaction to internal problems. For example, Charles Austin Beard(1874-1948), the most influential historian of the first half of the 20th century and one of the founders of the economic school of U.S. historiography, author of the four-volume work The Rise of American Civilization, believed that after the victory over Japan in 1945 the U.S. would wage "perpetual war for perpetual peace".

Using Beard's prior work as a starting point, the eminent American liberal writer Gore Vidal placed tables of military and other operations conducted by Americans up to 2001 on several pages of his 2002 book How We Got to Be So Hated. The author, "out of pity (to the readers. - E.P.), did not list military operations conducted by the CIA in various countries, for example, in Guatemala (1953), or in Iran (1953), when Mossadegh was overthrown, or in Chile, when  Allende was overthrown, etc.". But the main thing, as Vidal emphasized, is that "In these several hundred wars against Communism, terrorism, drugs, or sometimes nothing much, between Pearl Harbor and Tuesday, September 11, 2001, we (America. - E.P.) tended to strike the first blow. But then we're the good guys, right? (emphasis mine - E.P.)."

By the same token, in their book Why Do People Hate America?, Ziauddin Sardar and Merryl Wyn Davies counted 124 American interventions in various parts of the globe in the period from 1890 (the U.S. military operation in Argentina) to 2001 (the beginning of the operation in Afghanistan). And, as the authors indicate, provocations have always occupied a special place in U.S. interventionist policy.  Examples? By all means.

In 1898 an explosion was arranged on the U.S.S. Maine; the Spanish were blamed. As a result, the U.S. declared war on Spain.

On May 7, 1915 the U.S. put the Lusitania in the line of fire from German submarines. The liner, with its name painted out and with no flag of any country, deliberately entered a zone designated by the German government as a "submarine war zone". Under the wartime conditions, the Lusitania was torpedoed by a German submarine and sank. 1198 of the 1958 people on board were killed. This incident was used for informational pressure on public opinion in many countries and abruptly changed attitudes toward Germany.

In 1941 Roosevelt was well informed about the preparations for a strike on Pearl Harbor, but he did nothing, as he needed a reason for entering the war.

In 1964 the so-called Tonkin incident took place, serving as a pretext to begin the Vietnam War.

The explosion of the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001 became the pretext for military intervention in Afghanistan.

A mythical nuclear program was the pretext for the destruction of Iraq. The nuclear provocational pretext has long been hanging over Iran and North Korea. And now chemical weapons in Syria.

***

U.S. foreign policy was also characterized as murderous by one other American scholar, Arno J. Mayer, professor emeritus of history at Princeton University. He was unable to publish his article "Untimely Reflections upon the State of the World" in the U.S., "the most democratic country in the world". He was able to do so in the French newspaper Le Monde. I quote:

"Until now, in modern times, acts of individual terror have been the weapon of the weak and the poor, while acts of state and economic terror have been the weapon of the strong. In both types of terror it is, of course, important to distinguish between target and victim. This distinction is crystal-clear in the fatal hit on the World Trade Center: the target is a prominent symbol and hub of globalizing corporate financial and economic power; the victim the hapless and partly subaltern work force. Such a distinction does not apply to the strike on the Pentagon: it houses the supreme military command...of capitalist globalization, even if it entailed, in the Pentagon's own language, "collateral" damage to human life.

In any case, since 1947 America has been the chief and pioneering perpetrator of "preemptive" state terror, exclusively in the Third World and therefore widely dissembled. Besides the unexceptional subversion and overthrow of governments in competition with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, Washington has resorted to political assassinations, surrogate death squads and unseemly freedom fighters (e.g., bin Laden). It masterminded the killing of Lumumba and Allende; and it unsuccessfully tried to put to death Castro, Khadafi, Saddam Hussein...and condoned Israel's violation of international agreements and UN resolutions as well as its practice of preemptive state terror (emphasis mine. - E.P.)."

The genesis of the Syrian crisis arises from the very nature of U.S. hegemony. However, why has Washington aimed for a "final resolution" of the Syrian issue right now? Why did they resort to their tried and true scheme of provocation? And why did they prepare so poorly? The staged nature of the video footage fobbed off on the world as "proof" of a chemical attack supposedly perpetrated by the Syrian army was obvious practically the next day!

The fact that it was a provocation was confirmed on September 9 at the "Human Rights and Armed Conflicts: The Threat of U.S. Force against Syria and International Law" briefing during the 24th session of the UN Council on Human Rights. As noted in a press release on the results of the meeting, "convincing evidence that the video and photos of chemical attack victims in a suburb of Damascus on August 21 were fabricated beforehand. The audience was shown the testimony of numerous witnesses who unanimously confirmed that it was the rebels who used chemical weapons in the East Ghouta district. The results of investigations into the incident conducted by activists and the testimony of eyewitnesses were handed over to the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria".

But why did the U.S. back off? That's against the principles of a global leader, and the UN is no longer an authority to America.

As was already mentioned, the U.S. is accustomed to solving its problems through international banditry. That is the root of the crisis in Syria and the reason for its escalation.

First, the U.S. economy is currently nearing a "fiscal cliff". In such conditions, the promises Obama made during his election campaign - to lower taxes, raise wages and legalize immigrants - are impossible to fulfill. A stalemate situation has taken shape in the country, coupled with a drop in the popularity of Obama and his team. The advisors and analysts of the White House saw a way out in a "small, victorious war". It would be difficult to find a more convenient place for such a war than exhausted and devastated Syria. And the resolution of internal economic problems through military intervention is a "good old" Anglo-Saxon tradition.

Second, the forces behind Obama actively support and implement the "controlled chaos" project, from Mauritania to Kyrgyzstan to Kashmir. The "arc of instability” which started in the Balkans should, according to their logic, reach Russia and China.

However, a "problem" appeared on the path of global destabilization - Syria. And Damascus is the ally of three large powers at the same time: Russia, China and Iran. To Russia, the Syrians are not just allies, they are friends as well, as Vladimir Putin has particularly emphasized. 

As for "chaos", it is needed for very specific reasons. One of them is the transit of hydrocarbons. And here again the Russian factor arises. I believe that the escalation of the Syrian crisis should be seen as a direct reaction to the intensification of Russian energy policy. The fact of the matter is that on August 13, during Russian President V. Putin's visit to Baku, serious agreements were reached on the transit of oil: corresponding agreements were signed between the Russian state company Rosneft and its Azerbaijani partners, and new areas and formats of cooperation in the field of the fuel and energy complex were defined. And the agreements signed are of a long-term nature, "perspectives for 15, maybe 20 years, that is, a good basis for collaboration for many, many years to come." After the meeting, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev emphasized, "I think that a great number of things in the field of regional energy issues will depend on active cooperation and the coordination of our efforts. We are oriented toward decisive collaboration and the strengthening of cooperation with Russia in this important area of economic and political development". The takeaway from this meeting was the creation of a Russia - Azerbaijan oil union, i.e., just what the West was afraid of and worked against for many years.

From the beginning the genesis of the Syrian crisis was to a great extent determined by the problem of energy resource transit. As is well known, gas fields have been discovered in the Southern Mediterranean region, both on the continental shelf and on the territory of Syria (Kara).  There is one more "gas factor" in the Syrian crisis: if al-Asad's regime is overthrown, then Qatar, which is a liquefied natural gas exporter, will be able to transport the "blue fuel" directly from the Mediterranean coast through Syria. That will at least double its exports and at the same time will complicate exports for Iran. The strengthening of Qatar on the gas market will automatically lead to a weakening of the position of Russian companies. And if you add the establishment of control over Algerian gas (which the Americans are actively working on), that threatens a blockade of all of Russia's oil and gas exports.

In speaking of the oil and gas wars in the Middle East, one mustn't forget what a battle is unfolding around the South Stream. But that is another story.

There are other reasons for the escalation of the Syrian crisis and Washington's aggressive position. For example, a desire to break up the Tehran - Damascus - Hezbollah union, which is causing problems for the U.S. and Israel. However, the main object of a "final resolution" of the Syrian issue still remains demonstrating to Russia and everyone else that everything in the world will be the way the U.S. and the supranational structures of global governance which stand behind it decide it will be.

And now is the perfect time to remember the words of Stalin, who liked to repeat: "There is the logic of intentions and there is the logic of circumstances. And the logic of circumstances is stronger than the logic of intentions." But the provocateurs did not consider the logic of circumstances. They did not consider the fact that Russia has changed, as has the world. The unipolar system no longer exists, and Moscow no longer reacts to shouts from Washington the same way it did twenty years ago.

At the same time, we must admit that the Syrian crisis is far from being resolved. It is only slightly frozen. Ahead lie tense and exhausting diplomatic battles…

jeudi, 19 septembre 2013

Une nouvelle Route de la Soie reliera l’Asie à l’Europe

Ancient-Silk-road-map.jpg

Une nouvelle Route de la Soie reliera l’Asie à l’Europe

Par Tatiana Golovanova

Ex: http://fortune.fdesouche.com

Les pays regroupés dans l’Organisation de coopération de Shanghai (OCS) pourront rétablir la Voie de la Soie sous forme d’un corridor de transport spécialement aménagé. Comme l’a annoncé vendredi au sommet de l’OCS à Bichkek (Kirghizie) le ministre de la Recherche et des technologies de la Chine Wang Gang, ce projet a trouvé un soutien auprès de tous les pays membres de l’organisation.

Les membres de l’OCS sont prêts à développer les échanges économiques et commerciaux. Durant ces trois mois des spécialistes de Chine, qui a pris l’initiative de faire renaître la Voie de la Soie, ont visité les pays d’Asie Centrale – le Kazakhstan, l’Ouzbékistan et la Turkménie.

La Voie de la Soie rénovée pourra relier la Chine à l’Europe via la Russie et les États d’Asie Centrale

Des ententes ont été conclues au sujet de la réalisation des projets communs pour des dizaines de milliards de dollars. L’aménagement d’un corridor de transport de l’Asie à l’Europe est une étape suivante de l’essor de ces rapports, remarque Sergueï Sanakoïev, secrétaire de la Chambre sino-russe.

« Il s’agit de créer un corridor transnational traversant le territoire du continent eurasiatique. Comme toujours, l’aménagement de tels corridors en plus de rendre possible la circulation des marchandises et des services prévoient aussi la création de grappes d’entreprises industrielles, de nouvelles productions, de technologies de pointe. Cela veut dire que cela ouvre de plus larges possibilités à la coopération dans le cadre de l’OCS lors de la mise en œuvre d’une telle initiative. »

Le projet est censé mettre en place un réseau routier reliant le Pacifique à la mer Baltique, anéantir les barrières commerciales, réduire les délais de livraison des marchandises et augmenter les règlements mutuels en monnaies nationales. L’une des variantes possibles de la future Voie de la Soie est le corridor de transport « Europe –Chine Occidentale ».

Il passera par le Kazakhstan, approchera la frontière de la Russie et se prolongera par Orenbourg et les autoroutes fédérales vers Saint-Pétersbourg et la Golfe de Finlande et la mer Baltique. La longueur de ce parcours pourra atteindre près de 8 500 km. Voici le commentaire d’Alexandre Potavine, analyste de la compagnie « RGS – Gestion des actifs ».
« En regardant la carte du monde et en évaluant les possibilités d’aménager une telle voie, on verra que les marchandises de Chine seront livrées via la Russie, l’Asie Centrale en Europe. Ce projet profite évidemment à la Chine. Il permet de minimiser les frais de transport, étant donnée que la Grande Voie de la Soie est d’environ un tiers est plus court que la voie maritime, contournant l’Asie et la péninsule Arabique. »

Si on réussit de mettre en œuvre cette conception, la Chine réduira les délais de livraison de ses marchandises. Actuellement les frets parviennent à l’Europe par mer au bout de 45 jours, par le Transsibérien – cela prend deux semaines. La nouvelle voie sera la plus courte et ne prendra pas plus de dix jours.

En plus de la Chine le corridor de transport permettra de se développer à d’autres participants. Ils pourront gagner bien sur le transit et la logistique, et vont encore attirer des investissements chinois pour leurs projets de transport, remarque Sergueï Sanakoïev.

La Voix de la Russie

Siria y la consolidación de un “orden” multipolar en el siglo XXI

por Miguel Barrios

Ex: http://paginatransversal.wordpress.com

La crisis en Siria está demostrando de manera definitiva la consolidación de un “orden” multipolar integrado por Estados Continentales industriales-como lo había anticipado Juan Domingo Perón al plantear la fase del continentalismo hacia el universalismo y teorizado Alberto Methól Ferré, con su teoría de que solo los Estados continentales industriales pueden regular al sistema mundo-.

A pesar de un sin fin de teorías que no viene al caso analizar, también se comprueba día a día, que la geopolítica es el sustrato de las relaciones internacionales. Y en la crisis en Siria, la ubicación privilegiada de ésta, el objetivo del cerco a Irán, los recursos naturales, el gas y los gasoductos, son inseparables para entender la crisis y el comportamiento de los Estados Unidos. Y también la reacción de Rusia y China en el Consejo de Seguridad de las Naciones Unidas.

Algunas analistas vuelven a hablar de una nueva bipolaridad de EE.UU y Rusia y otros  de una era “apolar”, porque no hay actores nítidos,  es una exigencia para los latinoamericanos vislumbrar quienes son los actores del sistema mundo y cómo nos ubicamos.

Al abrirse el siglo XX, el geógrafo inglés Halford Mackinder señalaba,  en una conferencia del año 1904, que habíamos llegado al fin de un periodo de cuatro siglos al que llamaba “época colombina”, la era de formación unificada del sistema mundo iniciado por Castilla y Portugal, cuando impulsaron la navegación oceánica en el 1500 Desde el 900 es un sistema .Se trata de la segunda fase o periodo del sistema mundo.

En adelante hay definitivamente una sola historia, donde todo repercute en todo. Eso, es la originalidad que inaugura el siglo XX , que puede hablar así de guerras mundiales.

La era colombina era la de los grandes imperios marítimos coloniales dispersos en la ecumene, imperios de gran heterogeneidad en su constitución.

Pero el siglo XX cerraba el primer periodo del sistema mundo y con él, la era de los imperios marítimos coloniales que terminaron con la descolonización.

A la era final de los imperios coloniales se superponía la era de los Estados continentales industriales, segundo periodo del sistema mundo. Solo luego de la segunda guerra mundial se afirmó la bipolaridad dominante y determinante de EE.UU. y la URSS y muere la era talasocrática y sus potencias ahora en medianía.

Esta situación se complejiza con el surgimiento de innumerables Estados-nación que solo tenían de éstos el nombre, y peor aún, ya en la era de los Estados continentales industriales,  creándose una confusión teórica y práctica.

En nuestro tiempo y la crisis de Siria,  lo muestra elocuentemente, sin la idea de Estado-Nación nada se entiende. Pero con la sola idea de Estado-Nación tampoco nada se entiende. Una idea que sirve para todo corre el riesgo de terminar no sirviendo para nada, de ahí la necesidad de clarificar.

¿Qué rasgos principales tiene esta tercera fase? ¿Cuáles son sus características?

En resumen, si el segundo periodo del sistema mundo fue el surgimiento del Estado continental industrial y la lucha de los primeros EE.UU y la URSS, como última fase de la hegemonía de occidente, el tercer periodo, es el que se está consolidando en un “orden” multipolar de Estados Continentales industriales en distintos círculos culturales, de ahí la desoccidentalización de la política mundial.

Un Estado Continental industrial significa sumar en un poder soberano de dimensiones continentales la dimensión política, industrial, científico-tecnológica, militar y cultural. Los EE.UU, Rusia, China e India ya son Estados continentales industriales. La Unión Europea quedó en evidencia que no suma todo este poder, de ahí la división de posiciones entre Francia que acompaña a EE.UU. , el rechazo a la acción en Siria del Parlamento inglés y la actitud de rechazo de Alemania, son novedades originalísimas de la tercera fase del sistema mundo, y que surgen con claridad en Siria.

América Latina constituye una gran posibilidad histórica, porque el Mercosur, el Alba, la Unasur y la CELAC son anillos complementarios hacia un Estado Continental industrial, por ello, los bicentenarios son la hora de la Patria Grande de Manuel Ugarte.

La crisis en Siria demuestra con claridad absoluta que ya estamos en la tercera fase del sistema mundo.

Fuente: Dossier Geopolítico

mercredi, 18 septembre 2013

Syrie : L’initiative russe dans sa véritable dimension !

aaaazz628x471.jpg

Syrie : L’initiative russe dans sa véritable dimension !
 

L’initiative avancée par la Russie, pour contrer les États-Unis décidés à attaquer la Syrie, établit de nouvelles équations et de nouveaux équilibres traduisant les nouvelles réalités imposées par l’Axe de la résistance sur le terrain ; équations qui ont révélé  le coût d’une telle agression pour les États-Unis, leurs alliés, leurs agents dans la région et surtout pour l’entité sioniste, maintenant que la Syrie, l’Iran et la Résistance libanaise ont fait comprendre que cette entité recevra sa part de « la contre-attaque défensive » en réponse à l’agression étatsunienne.

Premièrement, par cette initiative la Russie a réussi à reprendre les rênes de l’offensive au niveau international et à imposer à Obama et à l’Empire US de nouvelles donnes qui devraient les ramener à « obéir » au Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU.

En effet, il est clair que l’équation révélée hier par M. Poutine, qui se résumerait à dire « l’arrêt de votre agression contre des accords avec la Syrie sur les armes chimiques », est le prélude à une entente globale qui  dissuaderait  toute ingérence en Syrie sous n’importe quelle forme que ce soit – aussi bien politique que financière ou militaire – et à la reprise du processus de Genève 2 perturbé par les USA depuis des mois.

De nombreux détails mériteraient plus d’attention et de suivi, notamment celui qui témoigne que la Russie a réussi à montrer que la crise est la résultante du conflit entre la Syrie et ses alliés d’une part, et les USA et leurs agents d’autre part ; en même temps qu’elle est apparue comme un référent essentiel pour les ajustements dictés par une nouvelle réalité internationale. Le tout, suivi d’une gifle retentissante assénée par son ministre des Affaires étrangères, Sergueï Lavrov, au triangle colonialiste US-France-GB lorsqu’il a refusé de placer tout projet concernant les armes chimiques dans le cadre du chapitre VII de la charte des Nations Unies.

Deuxièmement, l’ensemble des données disponibles révèlent que le « projet de solution russe »  vise à dissuader toute agression contre la Syrie et certainement pas à l’encourager ou à s’y associer. Ceci est très clair et le deviendra de plus en plus, car les USA ne devront pas se contenter de déclarer publiquement leur abandon des hostilités, retirer leurs navires de guerre et leurs destroyers ; ils devront aussi cesser tout financement, armement et soutien prodigués aux bandes terroristes. C’est en tout cas le premier point sur lequel repose l’entente préalable, sur cette initiative, entre les ministres des Affaires étrangères de la Russie et des USA.

Soutenir les efforts de l’Etat syrien dans son combat contre le terrorisme sera, dans les prochaines semaines, le cadre des activités de la Russie sur le plan international ; cette initiative ayant créé les conditions de nouvelles avancées sur le terrain en faveur de la Syrie. En l’occurrence, c’est ce dont témoignent les cris, les jérémiades et l’hystérie des pays impliqués dans l’agression, qui ont vu échouer leurs tentatives de destruction de l’État syrien et dont le dernier espoir était de faire pencher la balance en faveur des gangs terroristes d’Al-Qaïda dirigés par Bandar bin Sultan.

Troisièmement, l’abandon par la Syrie de son arsenal d’armes chimiques est compensé par une modification qualitative de ses capacités de défense et de dissuasion du fait de l’implication directe de la Russie dans des projets de renforcement de ses systèmes de défense et de sécurité. Ceci, que ce soit en missiles, en avions de combat, en armes sophistiquées, et même en connexion à l’immense réseau de stations radar russes comme l’a démontré le test des deux missiles [*] lancés par Israël.

Par conséquent, la Syrie – qui a annoncé sa volonté d’adhérer au Traité de non-prolifération des armes chimiques et d’abandonner son arsenal chimique sous contrôle international – dispose déjà de moyens, et disposera de tous les moyens qui seront mis à sa disposition par son allié russe. Par ailleurs, l’indéfectible partenariat qu’elle a construit avec l’Iran et la Résistance libanaise constitue une organisation hautement performante en cas d’agression sioniste, si bien qu’une des constantes des équations régionales et internationales est désormais que toute ingérence isolée ou groupée, d’Israël, des USA ou de l’OTAN en Syrie, rencontrera une douloureuse  réaction à laquelle participeront l’Iran et la Résistance libanaise, alors que la Russie sera présente en appui de la défense syrienne par tous les outils et moyens disponibles. D’ailleurs, c’est ce que la Russie a déjà fait en dépêchant sa flotte face au danger US et en fournissant des armes modernes à l’Armée arabe syrienne, en plus de ses formateurs et experts travaillant avec leurs homologues syriens à développer différentes techniques en fonction du plan de défense syrien.

Quatrièmement, la fin de règne de l’hégémonie et de l’unilatéralisme US, le renforcement de l’organisation défensive régionale contre Israël et les USA, et même la contre-attaque défensive contre l’agression des États-Unis qui ont pris toutes leurs dispositions pour ce faire, sont autant de réalisations initiées et accomplies par la résistance de l’État syrien, de son Commandant en chef, de son Armée et de son peuple ; réalisations à mettre aussi sur le compte de la fermeté de ses alliés d’Iran et du Hezbollah et de l’extraordinaire courage de son allié russe. Le monde doit s’attendre à découvrir le contenu de ce que nous ont préparé, tout en finesse politique et diplomatique, le trio  formé par Sergueï Lavrov, Walid Mouallem et Hussein Abdel Lahyan dont la présence concomitante à Moscou ne relève probablement pas de la coïncidence.

Le partenariat entre la Russie et « l’Organisation de la Résistance en Orient » s’est donc renforcé. C’est un nouveau bloc qui vient de naître et c’est le bras qui se met en travers de l’agression hargneuse des Israéliens et des USA.

Tout un chacun en Syrie ou ailleurs a le droit de  clamer que la Syrie en acceptant de se défaire de son arsenal chimique, au profit d’un système de défense plus performant, a capitulé. Mais cela reviendrait à refuser de reconnaître qu’une telle concession est d’un coût nettement moindre que celui que les Syriens auraient payé sans cette victoire politique, qui n’a été rendue possible que grâce à leur résistance à l’agression US.

Ce à quoi nous avons assisté, ces derniers jours, fera date dans l’Histoire moderne en ce sens que des forces de libération luttant pour leur souveraineté et leur indépendance ont réalisé cet exploit sans recourir à une guerre pour laquelle  ont été mobilisés de considérables moyens une fois qu’Obama a annoncé sa décision d’attaquer la Syrie, un exploit dont le mérite revient à la Résistance syrienne !

Ghaleb Kandil

11/09/2013

Article original : New Orient News

http://www.neworientnews.com/news/fullnews.php?news_id=112152

 Article traduit de l’arabe par Mouna Alno-Nakhal pour Mondialisation.ca

[*] La Russie détecte 2 missiles en Méditerranée

http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2013/09/03/97001-20130903FILWWW00299-la-russie-detecte-2-missiles-en-mediterranee.php

 

Monsieur Ghaleb kandil est le Directeur du Centre New Orient News (Liban)

mardi, 17 septembre 2013

Turkey’s Islamists and the military

turkish_military.jpg

Turkey’s Islamists and the military

Youri Kirillov
Ex: http://journal-neo.org

A trial of a group of the former military has started in Turkey. They are accused of the overthrow, in the course of the bloodless coup in 1997, of the Islamist government led by Prime Minister N. Erbakan’s Refah Partisi (Welfare Party). Later, it was banned by the country’s Constitutional Court for the activities of the “anti-secular nature”.

The Justice and Development Party (JDP) – the Islamist party which has been ruling the country since 2002 – originated from Refah Partisi. One of its founders – present Prime Minister Erdoğan – received the relay baton from the hands of his teacher Erbakan.

The trial process, which reminds us of who governs politics in Turkey today, continues the sequence of trials of the military. They include the Ergenekon case, which took place only a month ago, a conspiracy against the government, the imprisonment verdicts issued earlier to more than 300 military for preparing terrorist acts aimed at destabilisation.

In fact, this is the echo of the confrontation between the Islamists and the Turkish army, which, for a long time, considered itself to be the successor of Kemal Ataturk – the founder of secular Turkey.

Although the current process is Turkey’s internal matter, its regional subtext should not be disregarded in the context of the ongoing turbulent Arab Spring near Turkey.

After the Islamists’ success (which was unexpected for many) at the elections in Egypt and Tunisia, as well as the deepening of the crisis in Syria, prospects have emerged for these forces to strengthen their positions at the centre of power, in place of the former elites. A number of Arab political forces, especially the Muslim Brotherhood and similar groups, have focused their attention on the development experience according to the Turkish model. These trends, obviously, appealed to the JDP’s leadership and increasingly inspired them for political involvement, and not only that, in the internal affairs of the countries undergoing the “Arab awakening”.They have revived the long-cherished dreams of Ankara’s Islamist elite to obtain the status of the leader or “big brother” in the Arab-Muslim region.

However, as the subsequent events of the Spring have shown, the leadership of the Islamist parties in Egypt and Tunisia turned out to be incapable to put an end to the post-revolutionary turmoil. Their rule just exacerbated the existing problems in all aspects, and in the field of security in particular.

In Syria, the anti-government opposition was joined, under the mask of the revolution, by the most militant elements of the international terrorist forces.

As a result of the perturbations and the overall imbalance of the situation in the region, the system of economic relations established by Turkey with a number of Arab countries during the rule of the authoritarian leaders, has been shaken. Ankara suffered damage economically and financially due to the internal war and overthrow of Gaddafi in Libya, which used to be one of the strongholds of Turkey’s entrepreneurship in the Arab world. There were about 30,000 Turks here engaged in the implementation of projects worth $15 billion dollars.

The Ankara–Syria relations – once friendly and mutually beneficial for both countries – now have been knocked out. Bilateral trade was growing rapidly, the visa regime was removed, but Ankara’s withdrawal from this trajectory in 2011 shook the cooperation structure like an earthquake.

In addition to the expenses for the support of rebels, the Turkish authorities had to provide shelter to more than 400,000 Syrian refugees. The presence of so many people is fraught with the destabilisation of normal life in the region, which leads to dissatisfaction among the local population.

Experts are warning that the rebellion in Syria fomented with Turkey’s help can have a boomerang-like effect on Turkey itself, and the Syrian religious war will spill into Turkey.

Turkey’s regional geopolitical ambitions were challenged by the overthrow of President Mohamed Morsi in Egypt as the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood had been considered by Ankara as one of the most important partners.

Ankara’s relations with Egypt began to show signs of strain after Turkey’s leadership condemned the rise of the military in Egypt and the overthrow of Morsi. Cairo responded with an official protest to the interference in its internal affairs.

A very subdued reaction to the coup in Egypt from the West (especially from Turkey’s close ally – the US), the support for the Egyptian military on the part of Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf monarchies increased Erdoğan’s concerns about the military, interprets Atilla Yesilada, political analyst at Global Source Partners, Istanbul.

There is no denying that Turkey has outpaced the Arab world in terms of the level of the secularisation of society. Today, when in a number of the Spring countries there is a growing divide in society and an increasing confrontation between the Islamists, who came to power on the protest wave, and the liberal pro-secular forces, logically Ankara should side with the latter.

However, in reality, its authorities, following their narrow party interests, are playing into the hands of those forces in the Arab countries which, by striking the Islamist chords, are pulling their countries back.

Yuri Kirillov, an expert on the Middle East and North Africa, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.